VAL0056

 

Written Evidence submitted by AoC, Association of Colleges

 

Background 1. The Association of Colleges (AoC) represents nearly 95% of the 288

colleges in England incorporated under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

2. Colleges are transformational – they help people make the most of their talents and ambitions and drive social mobility; they help businesses improve productivity and drive economic growth; they are rooted in and committed to their communities and drive tolerance and well-being. They are an essential part of England’s education system.

3. Colleges provide academic, technical and professional education for young people, adults and employers. Among other things, the 288 colleges provide education and training to:

a. 712,000 young people aged 16 to 18 b. 1.4 million adults including 150,000 taking HE courses c. 313,000 apprentices1

4. Colleges have a triple interest in the topic of value for money in higher

education (HE) because they teach A Level and BTEC courses which help students enter university, they offer HE courses themselves (generally higher nationals and foundation degrees) and because they offer alternatives such as apprenticeships.

5. The committee’s subject is value for money in HE but there is request specifically for information on five topics. Our response is organised around these topics.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 6. HE has a central role in helping individuals secure their potential, in

advancing civilization and in ensuring that the country has both a successful economy and effective public services. The committee needs to take a broad view of HE in England and not fall into the trap of focusing solely on the education of the elite. England has more world class universities than any other country apart from the USA but this is not the only target that matters2. The education of future scientists, hospital consultants, business leaders and politicians is incredibly important but successful economies need a wider pool of skilled people. There is so much focus on entry to certain universities that it is easy to forget that fewer than 1% of 18-year-olds in England attend the two Oxbridge universities and fewer than 10% attend the other more selective universities. The

                                                            1 AoC Key Facts about colleges 2017 2 UK has 12 universities in top 100 in Times Higher Education ranking

VAL0056

success of our society and economy depends on a much broader base of people including older adults who acquire higher skills and capabilities on a part-time basis from a range of institutions.

7. There is new and high quality data on the employment outcomes of graduates compiled by matching student loan and tax data. This makes it possible to measure the earnings achieved by different cohorts of graduates in subject or university groups. This data is useful to inform the debate but it needs to be put into context. Future employment success may simply reflect family background or past school success. There is a risk that non-contextualised data will simply publicly praise those institutions who recruit already high-achieving students from middle-income backgrounds with high A Level grades.

8. Owing to their scope, indicators such as the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) and Destinations of Leavers from HE (DLHE) data have some limitations.College students are often registered for Level 4/5 qualifications but subsequently progress to completing the top-up year to achieve a Level 6 qualification, which poses complexities in capturing the destinations and outcomes. DLHE outputs are based on SOC codes that don't accurately reflect some current graduate positions. A new Graduate Outcomes Survey will replace DLHE but is unclear how students progressing from Foundation Degrees to top-up will be considered, particularly if the survey is undertaken 15 months after employment. On the other hand, LEO data does not sufficiently capture graduates in all types of employment. For instance, students in the land-based or creative industries are often self-employed and the LEO data does not include this group. In addition, LEO data for colleges has not yet been published.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 9. On its own, the education system cannot secure social justice and equal

opportunity; it nevertheless makes a difference. There are a number of ways to look at this issue. The following points are worth considering:

a. More young people from poorer families are progressing to HE despite the increase in fees. 24% of those in receipt of free school meals at age 15 were in HE compared to 14% ten years earlier3. Institutions have been able to expand, there have been improvements in sixth form education and there has been a focus on widening participation.

b. There is a wide gap in the entry to selective universities. Just 23% of A Level students from state schools and colleges progressed to the most selective universities in 2014/15, compared to 65% of students from the independent sector4. This gap in progression rates between the state and independent sector has grown by 6 percentage points since 2008/09 and is only partly the result of exam performance.

                                                            3 DFE SFR 39/2017 Widening participation in HE, the 2014-15 cohort 4 DFE SFR 39/2017 Widening participation in HE, the 2014-15 cohort

VAL0056

  

Investment also matters: average independent school fees are more than £15,8305 whilst average sixth form funding rates are less than £5,000.

c. There is some evidence that poorer students are already more likely

to opt for shorter courses nearer their home because of a lack of funds and debt aversion.6 Students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to live at home and study locally rather than at the most prestigious institutions, with a major contributing factor to this decision being cost.7

d. The pattern of HE access has not changed as much as perceptions,

despite the work associated with OFFA’s access agreements and HEFCE’s widening participation strategies. The enrolment of students in selective universities from disadvantaged areas has not shifted for a decade. Meanwhile, some colleges take in up to 50% of their HE students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

10. A further issue is the way in which the HE system is constructed and

financed. HE student fees and loan system in England supports high-quality teaching but it is expensive and offers unhelpful incentives. The average full-time student graduates with a loan debt of £50,000 which fewer than 20% are expected to repay in full within 30 years8. There is strong cultural bias towards full-time residential HE and England has high housing costs. It is no surprise that the majority (89%) of eligible students take out maintenance loans to cover living costs.

11. Student loans have protected HE at a time of public spending cuts but the system lacks mechanisms to keeps costs down. The fact that repayments start after graduation and are income contingent creates an obvious incentive for institutions to increase fees towards the fee cap (£9,250), particularly as many people equate higher tuition fees with higher quality. In our view the price/quality correlation is less clear because of the impact of internal cross-course subsidies, reputation, heritage and the difficulties of providing external quality assessment. When the fee cap was first raised to £9,000 in 2012, around 40 colleges charged fees above the £6,000 threshold but the price advantage for the rest proved to be limited. 75 colleges now set fees at a higher level with 48 having approval to charge the full £9,250 fee for some or all of their courses9.

12. There is a widespread view that a degree maximises the chances for a young person in the professional labour market. This has helped contribute

                                                            5 Independent School Census (2017).. Page 32 Average sixth form day fee. 6 Callender and Jackson (2005) ‘Does the fear of debt deter students from higher education?’ Journal of Social Policy, 34: 509-540 7Mangan, J et al. (2010) Fair access, achievement and geography: explaining the association between social class and students' choice of university. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (3). pp. 335-35 8 IFS “Higher Education Finance Reform: Raising the Repayment Threshold at £25,000 and freezing the fee cap at £9,250” estimates that 17% of students starting in 2017 will repay in full. 9 Offa figures on access agreements

VAL0056

to a situation where 48% of young people enter HE. For many young people, this will be a good choice and both our society and economy will benefit. However there is a clear risk that there will be an oversupply of graduates particularly given that automation and Brexit may bring economic change.

13. Students who want alternatives to full-time HE are poorly served. Young adults who opt for courses at Level 4 or 5 have no access to maintenance support. There has been a serious decline in the number of mid-career adults taking HE courses and there are low numbers taking HE courses below degree level. This may be holding back both the prospects for individuals but also the skills available to employers and public services.

14. The task of rebalancing the HE system is not a simple one and will take

time because of the long application cycle. Possible measures could include a reintroduction of a number of controls targeted on certain subjects, accelerated degrees and reform of maintenance loans to support home based study and Level 4 and 5 courses.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 15. Education takes considerable personal effort which produces some benefits

which are not visible for decades. It is impossible to precisely measure the quality and effectiveness of teaching and important to recognize that any systems for doing so are inherently flawed. There is a growing fixation on simple university league tables as way to measure quality. These make the world transparent but they measure what can be measured not necessarily what matters. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a genuine attempt to improve on these measurements and to arrive at a better set of judgements but it is a set of proxies and currently only works at institution level. The metrics used in the TEF draw on student outcomes, not necessarily the quality of teaching. The subject level pilot for TEF is starting now and is likely to be difficult. Nevertheless, unlike alternative HE providers, colleges have actively engaged in the TEF. 106 colleges participated in 2016-17 with 14 achieving gold status, 46 rated as silver and 31 bronze, while 15 received a “provisional” rating. It is likely that the participation in TEF will increase with more colleges participating in TEF year 3. The lessons learned from TEF year 2 will help refine the scheme with a reduced focus on National Student Survey (NSS) metrics and provision for additional information for part time. Also, Annual Provider Review (APR) is the core component of the new approach to quality assessment. This is a low-burden, annual monitoring process that builds on existing HEFCE data analysis and assurance arrangements. However, there is a need to ensure that, in the light of a risk-based assessment model, the sector does not lose sight of quality enhancement, and therefore continuous improvement.

16. The measurement of quality in further and school level education is just as difficult as in HE. However, this measurement of quality makes good use of lesson observation and comparing performance data against external benchmarks. Despite all the time and money spent on assessment and

VAL0056

  

quality assurance in HE, these techniques are missing or under developed. It would be a long-term project to address this issue but, as a start, a national credit accumulation framework for undergraduate education might help.

Senior management pay in universities 17. There has been some recent media interest in senior management pay in

universities. We have no particular insight into this issue but we believe the committee may find it useful to have information on senior management pay in colleges. Like universities, colleges are self-governing, public service institutions but on a smaller scale.

18. AoC collects survey data from colleges. Our latest survey covering 130 colleges suggests that the median salary in 2017 is £128,000 which is a slight fall from 2016 when it was £130,000. 69% of Principals are over 50; 43% are women and 90% are white British. Salaries are higher in larger colleges and lower in smaller ones. The median salary in colleges with income above £50 million is £160,000. For colleges with income below £10 million, it is £98,000.

The role of the Office for Students 19. The Office for Students takes over responsibility for regulating HE in 2018

but it shares territory with UK Research and Innovation and with further education (FE) regulators. Unlike Scotland which has a joint funding council or Wales which is about to put one into place, England has overlapping HE and FE systems. The agencies work in parallel and occasionally co-operate. There is, for example, a concordat between HEFCE and Ofsted which determines that the former will oversee degree apprenticeships whereas the latter will inspect higher apprenticeships. There will be joint oversight where an apprenticeship has a mix of qualifications.

20. Parliament recently approved legislation to update the regulation of HE. There is no prospect of new legislation in the short-term, but the Government missed an opportunity by its decision to reform HE regulation without properly considering the interaction with FE. OfS is tasked with introducing a single coherent regulatory regime for HE providers in a system where almost 200 of those providers (colleges) are already tightly regulated by other government agencies. DfE intends OfS to charge subscriptions to cover its costs (up to £30 million a year). An obvious value for money concern for colleges is making sure that the office’s oversight and its charges make use of existing FE systems to save work and cost.

21. One early priority for OfS will be to ensure continuity of learning for students and to ensure this is maintained in cases of course closure and provider exit. The growth in the number of students in profit-making providers and the financial pressures on all institutions mean this will be a growing issue. Colleges have experience of a more volatile market in FE and have worked with funding agencies to maintain continuity for learners. One obvious risk is that compliance costs will rise. If so, this would be

VAL0056

particularly problematic for colleges with small HE cohorts in places like Devon, Cumbria and Lincolnshire where there is relatively limited university provision.

22. Colleges generally offer Higher National Certificates (HNCs), Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) and Foundation Degree programme qualifications at a lower cost than HEIs. In order that colleges can offer value for money to students and employers who often support employees to study at FE colleges, it is important that the cost of delivering HE does not rise significantly when OfS assumes it role as the regulator. The registration fee for OfS must therefore reflect the smaller size and lesser income for HE in colleges.

October 2017

VAL0014

Written Evidence submitted Anonymously Whilst the enquiry relates mainly to value for money, it requests comments relating to ‘social justice’. The following relates solely to this aspect. Tuition fees incompatible with UK commitment under UN Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (CECSR):

1. Article 13 of the CECSR (to which the UK is a signatory) states “Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.”

2. In its 2016 Observations the UN Committee for CECSR stated ‘The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary steps to reduce higher education fees, with a view to making higher education equally accessible to all, in accordance with capacity, and by progressively introducing free higher education.’

3. The CECSR represents International law. The UK doesn`t yet appear to have responded to the 2016 CECSR Observations but in 2014 it’s response to a similar request was merely to describe the new loans scheme. The request in 2014 made it clear that free education meant education at all levels. It stated ‘In line with general comment No. 13 (1999) on the right to education, the Committee encourages the State party to review its policy on tuition fees for tertiary education with a view to implementing article 13 of the Covenant, which provides for the progressive introduction of free education at all levels. It also recommends that the State party eliminate the unequal treatment between European Union member State nationals and nationals of other States regarding the reduction of university fees and the allocation of financial assistance (paragraph 44 of the CO).’

4. Clearly the new loans scheme does not represent ‘free education at all levels’ and therefore the UK is in breach of its obligations under International Law.

5. ACTION NEEDED: the UK should take steps to comply with its commitment under the CECSR

Misselling/ loan terms

6. The new loans scheme has been missold to a section of the population which is both inexperienced and not financially literate (schoolleavers).

VAL0014

7. A number of fallacies have been employed in this misselling. Examples are: i) Statement that “university will remain free at the point of entry – no

one has to pay up front, and graduates only have to repay their loans when they are earning over £21,000” made by the Student Loans Company, and repeated according to a report in the Times on 19 October by Jo Johnson when he is reported to have said that the present system should be thought of as ‘government help to enable people to go to university free at the moment of participation’.

ii) This is a fallacy (speaking as an accountant) because if it were indeed true then the student loans company could not record an asset for the loan receivable on day one of a student’s university life, nor could it charge interest from day one. If it were free at the point of entry there would be no liability (and no asset for the student loans company until the student began to earn over £21,000). That is not the case as the asset is recorded by the Student Loans Company and interest charged. Therefore the statement is untrue and a false incentive to young and inexperienced people to assume that they are getting something free when in fact they are taking on a considerable burden of debt.

iii) Statement that graduates earn on average £x more than non-graduates. This is misleading because it masks the fact that many graduates do not earn highly and that whilst they may earn more on average this does not necessarily mean that the individual taking out the loan will do the same. The lack of a warning that this is the case can lead inexperienced young people to believe that whatever the outcome they will gain significant advantage from a degree when in fact an individual taking out a loan may not do so. It is rather like saying the stock market has risen by 10% over the last 5 years without also warning an individual investor that he may not in fact get 10% on his or her investment (or indeed get it back). Such a selling method would not be tolerated from a properly regulated financial institution and similar warnings are required on investment products.

iv) The government obtained a statement that student loans would be very unlikely to affect the ability of students to obtain mortgages and this was publicised on the BIS website. See National Archives http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/https://bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education/students/student-finance/myth-buster

v) In fact they now do affect that ability as has been confirmed by a number of mortgage lenders following the introduction of the MMR Guidelines. The government should have appropriately caveated the statement which may also have encouraged students to take out loans

VAL0014

as they would have had the impression that this was likely to always be the case in the absence of such a caveat.

vi) Apparently the terms of the loan agreement state ‘you must agree to repay your loan in line with the regulations that apply at the time the repayments are due and as they are amended. The regulations may be replaced by later regulations.’

vii) No responsible financial advisor would allow a client to sign such an open-ended agreement where a lender could impose whatever terms it liked. Suppose the lender increased the interest rate to 50%? It is clear that this amounts to exploitation of the inexperience and lack of financial acumen of young people and such agreements should be scrutinised and amended by a responsible organisation appointed to look after the interests of potential students.

viii) ACTION NEEDED: the student loans company should be regulated by an appropriate body such as the FCA and appropriate warnings should be included on all loan offers that the borrower may not recover his or her investment. An enquiry should be held into past misselling by government/lenders. A responsible and independent body should be appointed to examine the loan agreements to ensure that they are fair and just to students.

Benefits and costs

8. Whilst it is clear that there is a benefit to students from obtaining a degree, it is a fact that the costs to government of providing higher education for a student (when the government funded higher education) were more than recovered through the higher taxes paid by graduates on their incremental earnings.

9. The government’s policy of requiring students to fund all their costs through tuition fees is unjust because it gives a ‘free ride’ to all other sections of society who also benefit from graduate education. These include industry and commerce who benefit from a skilled source of recruitment and general taxpayers who benefit through their children taught by graduates and their health looked after by graduates. Whilst both companies and taxpayers pay towards education and health in general it is unjust that the student contributes the whole cost of the extra benefits that are brought to education, health and commerce by the graduate level of service.

VAL0014

10.Similarly it is not just that the government gives assistance to industry for example when industry does not need the help, whilst denying investment in young people.

11.It is estimated (by the IFS) that the cost of writing off student debt would be an increase in the national debt of around £20bn by 2050 and that the annual cost of abolishing tuition fees would be around £11m. The cost of tax rate cuts since 2010 is estimated at £16.5m per year by the IFS reducing to £12.4bn per year. The IFS said in an article on 10 May 2017 ‘Alongside this observation, we are today publishing a new analysis of what’s happened to corporation tax and receipts since 2010. Rate cuts announced since 2010 are forecast to cost at least £16.5 billion a year in the near term, with tax raising measures bringing the net cost to £12.4 billion a year. Under current plans, corporation tax receipts are forecast to be 2.3% of national income by 2021–22, substantially below the pre-recession high of 3.2%.’

12.It is reported that the deficit on the Universities pension fund is now in excess of £17bn. This deficit has arisen over a number of years (but is now only apparent due to the low discount rate that now has to be used). This includes the period when the government was responsible for funding higher education. It is quite unfair that student tuition fees are or may be being used to fund this deficit when it is largely due to government underfunding. Steps should be taken to ring fence this liability and ensure that student tuition fees are not used to pay off past liabilities. If necessary the government should take over the liability as it did with the Royal Mail scheme.

Other inequalities

13.The system of loans favours women at the expense of men, simply because of the natural fact that many women will leave employment to raise families and thus be less likely to earn enough to reach the repayment threshold for loans.

14.Similarly the system means that UK students are effectively subsidising graduates from some EU countries where the average wage is much lower than in the UK which means that the graduates from those countries are also less likely to reach the repayment thresholds.

Comparison with other countries

VAL0014

15.It is often argued that abolishing tuition fees would mean imposing a cap on numbers of students. This argument was rather alarmingly exposed in an article in the Times on 18 October where the new chairman of the Office for Students made that argument and then referred to the achievement of Finland which had 70% of young people going to university. Surprisingly he appeared to be unaware that there are no tuition fees in Finland.

16.Many other countries believe that higher education is a social good and therefore do not have tuition fees. These include most Scandinavian companies and Germany, with many others having significantly lower levels of fees than the UK. UK students are therefore put at a disadvantage to many of their peers in other European countries (and Scotland).

17.In terms of Scotland it is entirely unjust that students in one part of the UK have to pay tuition fees whilst their fellow countrymen and women in Scotland do not.

The poorest

18.It is often argued that the poorest people should not have to subsidise the better off by paying taxes that would be used for tuition fees were they to be abolished. This is a nonsense argument as the better off taxpayers subsidise the provision of services to those who are poorer, such as health and education. The contribution from the poorer taxpayer would be much lower than that of the higher taxpayer and the poorer taxpayer would still have the same opportunity for his or her children to go to university free. If necessary the additional tax needed were tuition fees to be abolished could be levied on the better off, which most would not object to given the considerable opposition amongst the better off towards the injustices in the present system.

October 2017

VAL0006

Written evidence sent by Anonymous I would like the committee to think about those people who have got a degree and them then go on and commit a crime. They lose their job, go to prison and will never be able to (or find it extremely difficult to) return to their previous profession. They are then effectively paying for a degree, through their student loan repayment via their salary, for a degree they are no longer benefitting from. Especially when the government and other political parties like the Lib Dems, say that those who benefit from a degree, should pay for it. The current unforgiving society we live in (with society’s non-compassion being ‘egged on’ by the media), already make it difficult for those people with a criminal record. This so called “graduate tax” is another in direct punishment for ex-offenders that people do not think about, considering most of these people will not be able to do jobs they trained for. Most graduate jobs now-a-days, ask about past criminal convictions, even though they don’t really need to, it is just another way for them to filter candidates, which is grossly unfair. What do the committee think about this? Another point I would like the committee to consider, for those people who are on the old system, they must start paying after £17,775.00, and this is hugely a low figure. It is quite possible for a warehouse worker, working on a nightshift and at weekends, earning £22k a year. So, a graduate doing a low skilled, warehouse job, would have to pay for their student loan, even though they are not benefitting from their degree (for those people on the pre-2012 repayment system). There may be many reasons why this graduate is doing a warehouse job, for example a criminal record holding them back, they can’t find a job because they just had a baby, or there are no high skilled jobs available in their area, etc. What would be better, if the government raised the salary you start paying back (for all graduates regardless of when they started their degree) to £5,000 above the average salary. So, currently the UK’s average salary is £27,600. Therefore, what I am proposing is, ALL graduates start repaying back if they earn above £32,600 (this figure is accumulated by adding £5,000) This way, if people who have got a degree but are in low paid, low skilled jobs, for whatever reason; will not have to pay for a degree they are not benefitting from. However, to the contrary, if someone is in a low skilled job (not related to their degree), but earning good money, for example a lorry driver, then you can say to them “even though you are in a job that has nothing to do with your

VAL0006

degree, you are still earning significantly above the average wage, so you should contribute”.  

 

 

October 2017

VAL0046

  

Written Evidence submitted from Birkbeck College Parliamentary Studies Group Overview

I. This evidence is based on the views of 14 Birkbeck students from the Parliamentary Studies class, gathered in October 2017. Birkbeck College is an ‘evening university’ with many students also working full time. Some of the views expressed here may reflect it’s rather unique approach.

II. Students were: Anna Zietkowska, C T Jones, Rory Irving, Lyndell Delsol, Anne Wolfe, Shannon Green, Thomas Gough, Matthew Eaton, Hanan Sakhi, James Smyth, Tony Samphier, Aisha Jama, Altina Smith, Muktar Sheriff.

III. Tutors: Dr Ben Worthy and Prof. Sarah Childs Question 1: How well does higher education provide value for money (i.e. how good is the quality of university education compared with what you pay)?

Rating % Very Good 1 (7.1%) Good 7 (50%) Average 4 (28.6%) Poor 2 (14.3%) Very poor 0

Question 2: Why did you rate value money in the way you did (explain your reasons)? 2.1 Students had very mixed views on whether HE was ‘value for money’. Most interpreted value for money as a combination of the teaching quality and environment. Some felt that ‘the quality of teaching is good and the student support services are excellent’ but felt other aspects less so ‘the teaching facilities are not great learning environments and are often cramped and messy’. 2.2 Others were less impressed overall. One said the ‘quality of teaching is good but not exceptional. This is part cultural, which needs to be addressed by academics and university managers, and part resource-based, which should be addressed by government’. Another felt that higher education ‘is over-priced’ given the contact time and facilities. 2.3 A number pointed out how hard it was to tell whether HE was value for money or not. This was partly because of the economic environment as ‘higher education has been 'marketised' but most students don't have multiple

VAL0046

  

experiences to make comparable judgements as to whether it is good value or not’. Others felt they had no real sense of where the money went ‘I just cannot see where this money is going because I am sure it is not all going to lecturer's salaries’ and ‘as someone who has a student loan I must admit I don't see the money and therefore don't think about the money’. 2.4 A number felt uncomfortable with the idea itself of value for money. One student felt ‘value for money’ is a disturbing concept in higher education. Educating its citizens should be a top priority for any nation’ and another said ‘it is a public service not a business!’ Question 3: What opportunities are available for achieving social justice in higher education (e.g. promoting equality and allowing everyone to access university?) and what barriers exist? 3.1 Some felt there were no barriers as ‘access to higher education is convenient for everyone’ . Others also praised the fact that once in university ‘you are treated equally. Many people who would have dealt with social injustice should find some solace within the university arena’. 3.2 Of the barriers mentioned, finance was one of the biggest: ‘The barrier of increased fees creates social injustice because those who are not entitled to student finance cannot access higher education’. One student spoke of waiting for four years between being offered a place and having the resources to take it up. Others mentioned the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) as a severe obstacle. There are also other more practical problems for those in different circumstances than the average student-as one student pointed out ‘there is a lack of paternal care on offer in universities’ 3.3. Many felt the barriers were being reduced but were still present:

There are probably fewer barriers now than ever before with the universities competing for students (or should I say customers). Barriers are still cost/finance of your course as well as social background, family expectation, religious or cultural values at odds with higher education aims.

3.4. As another put it succinctly: Higher education still offers the best route to improved living standards for the underclass and the working class. However excessive tuition fees, lack of support for single parents and many other disadvantaged members of society are still inexcusable barriers preventing access.

Question 4: How good is the support for disadvantaged students (explain why you think so)?

VAL0046

  

4.1 Views were also mixed. Some felt it was very good. One who had experienced some health difficulties said ‘The university personnel were amazing. They assisted me to gather all the necessary documentation to be able to continue my studies during difficult time.’ Others praised the availability of bursaries. 4.2 Some felt it was a little more variable and ‘is entirely dependent on the institution which they attend’ so that the ‘bursaries available differ quite substantially and the support is uneven’. 4.3 There is also a wider problem of how disadvantaged students get access to the services ‘as those who are disadvantaged are often the last to ask for help’. The discussion was locked into a wider problem whereby, as one put it ‘privileged children get higher education and disadvantaged children get apprenticeships’. This also meant disadvantaged students ‘may not be eligible for other sources of funding such as career development loans or standard loans.’ The sheer cost means many ‘rethink’ a university career or opt for ‘another field that might be less stressful and more rewarding financially’. 4.4. One student put the issue in a wider context:

Access to higher education doesn’t start with the first term at university/college. Support needs to be forthcoming from Y7 onwards first to encourage aspirational thinking and...the understanding of career opportunities and the routes required to access them from Y13 and beyond. This is sadly missing in many schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas. It is not just about funding – although financial support for Education Action Zones, Education Business Partnerships and Connexions were very valuable – until also scrapped.

Question 5: What are you views of senior management pay (e.g. of those at the top of universities such as Vice Chancellors) in universities? (students were given links to stories and data) 5.1 Students were generally unhappy and (if they were unaware) surprised by the levels of senior management pay with comments such as ‘I have to admit that I didn't know their job reward is so high’ or ‘I think the pay far exceeds the job which they perform’. 5.2 There was also resentment that universities were behaving (or being made to behave) like businesses. One very typical comments was that:

I. Senior management are overpaid especially when some universities are currently complaining about struggling to fund certain areas...It's a massive kick in the teeth when a chancellor complains about funding whilst on 300k a year, when the students have to fork out £9,000, which they're likely to spend 30 years of their life burdened with.

VAL0046

  

One felt it was symptomatic of the fact that:

II. Universities have become complicit in shifting to private firms pay structures and culture. Increasingly it is a pyramid of excessive top earners and average earnings to those whose inputs are invaluable to the learning experience like professors. The cost of this to the students remains exorbitant.

5.3 A number of students felt there should be more openness around pay: ‘there’s not enough transparency to see why they get as paid as much as they do’ and it is ‘too easy to hide behind remuneration committees’. One student recommended ‘pay ratios whereby senior managers are only paid - for example - five times more than the lowest earner in a given institution’. Question 6: How do you rate the quality and effectiveness of teaching in the university? Does it provide value for money? (Explain why you think so) 6.1. There were variable views both in terms of quality and over whether overall teaching skills and quality could be generalised. 6.2 Some felt standards were overall ‘very good. Lecturers are very passionate about teaching. They are enthusiastic and always happy to help’. Some felt it still did not match the fees paid ‘the quality of teaching for the most part is excellent but it still doesn't justify the excessive fees students are forced to incur for higher education’. As one put it:

I. The quality and effectiveness at the university is of a good standard and all lecturers are knowledgeable and helpful. However, in terms of value for money, it's not as positive. £9,000 a year for roughly 200 hours of teaching per student is nowhere near representative of the actual cost of teaching. This would mean per lecture of say 30 people, the university is getting roughly £1350 off of students.

6.3 A number of students reflected on the variability of teaching ‘The quality again depends greatly on the lecturer. I think the majority of learning takes place through independent study’ and ‘it very much depends on modules’. Conclusions

a) Students were unsure of whether HE offered ‘value for money’ while some were unhappy with the idea and its implications

b) Finance was a key barrier and cause of concern-many were unclear on where the money went.

c) Disadvantaged students could access HE but wider societal funding and support was a key barrier

October 2017

VAL0073

  

Written Evidence submitted by Birkbeck, University of London

1. Birkbeck, University of London, was founded in 1823 as the London Mechanics’ Institute to open up university education to working people. That founding vision of the power of education to transform and improve lives, and the commitment to social change and widening access still drives the College today.

2. Uniquely, Birkbeck teaches its courses in the evening. This teaching model gives our 13,000 students – who range in age from 18 to 80 – the opportunity to combine study with meaningful work or family commitments during the day.

3. Our flexible course structure enables our students to complete a degree in the same length of time as ‘regular’ students studying in the daytime at other universities. Our students can also study part-time at a slower pace to suit them.

4. Birkbeck students can study for more than 130 Masters Degrees, 40 Certificates of Higher Education, 6 Foundation Degrees and nearly 80 undergraduate degrees. These span the arts; business, economics and informatics; law; science; social sciences, history and philosophy. We are the sixth largest provider of postgraduate programmes in the UK to Home/EU students and more than 90% of our students are mature learners (over 21). In October 2017, we are also moving into the Apprenticeship space and offering three Apprenticeship programmes (two Degree and one Higher).

5. Birkbeck has long encouraged applications from students without traditional qualifications or from disadvantaged and under-represented groups. More than half our full-time equivalent undergraduate students come from households with income less than £25K and 45% of our students receive financial support.

6. While our roots are firmly in London, Birkbeck has a global reputation as a world-class research intensive institution. In the 2014 Research Excellence Framework, the most recent UK-wide assessment of the quality of university research, 73% of our research rated ‘world-leading’ or ‘internationally excellent’. The Times Higher Education World University rankings 2015-16 placed us among the world’s top 250 universities.

VAL0073

  

7. Birkbeck is pleased to give evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee inquiry on value for money in higher education at this important time of change within the Higher Education sector. We would of course be happy to elaborate on any answers by providing further written evidence or oral evidence.

8. Birkbeck will endeavour to answer as many of the Committees questions as possible with reference to our unique role as a provider of evening and part-time higher education.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

9. Many of Birkbeck’s students work while studying so they see being a student as something that is part of their life as much as working. This in contrast to many 18 year olds at conventional universities, who see themselves as students, first and foremost.

10.While A-Levels can be a good indicator of later attainment for an 18 year old, those who have experience only of Further Education (FE) or who have been out of the education system entirely for many years, courses such as the Certificate of Higher Education Introductory Studies offered by Birkbeck can offer a way in to Higher Education for older learners.

11.At present, comparisons on graduate outcomes are made on the basis of the Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) survey taken six months after graduation. This is often far too soon to tell whether gaining a degree has had an impact on their future career or earnings prospects. We expect this will change with the new graduate outcomes survey next year which should show higher salaries because the survey is taken 18 months after graduation.

12.No survey or data set that we are aware of measures salary before study and then after study so it is hard to show the value added by degree study. However, this is particularly important for mature students as they are already likely to be in work and will make a trade off about earning potential as one of their decisions when applying for a degree course and student finance.

13.Part-time students are by definition local. It is extremely unlikely that someone wishing to study part-time will move across the country to do so. Therefore their graduate earnings are likely to be reflected by the local labour market or particular professions eg: teaching, local government etc. In this instance a lower salary rate may not reflect on a bad student experience or poorer teaching but purely as a geographical factor. This is

VAL0073

  

less of a case for Birkbeck being located in London and recruiting students from London and the wider South-East but would be a problem for part-time providers elsewhere in the country.

14.The Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data is a good first attempt at trying to establish a link between subjects and later salary levels. However it doesn’t [measure] distinguish part-time employment versus employment hours (full time equivalent) which means many women (and some men) who work part-time are not accurately recorded, or worse it may make some courses that attract high numbers of female graduates (eg: creative arts, social work) look like poorer value for money. LEO also doesn’t contain self-employment earnings which older students are likely to be undertaking or wish to use their degree to go into.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

15.At Birkbeck we know the conventional university model is not right for everyone. Teaching between 6pm and 9pm gives people the chance to study at a world class university and progress their life goals at the same time. Whether they are taking their first steps on the career ladder, changing career, or fitting study around family life, people are drawn to Birkbeck because we support and enable diverse life choices.

Birkbeck attracts a student body that directly reflects the diversity of London itself:

45% of our students are aged 25 to 39 years, Over a fifth are aged 40 or over. Over 40% of our students are from BME backgrounds and many come

from low income households. 76% of our students work full-time while studying.

16.Part-time students in the UK do not as yet have access to government

maintenance loans but we welcome this change for the 2018/19 academic year. We hope that this may see a shift between full-time study to part-time study as there has been no maintenance support in this area previously. That said Birkbeck places its own emphasis on support with the Birkbeck Bursary programme. 40% of Birkbeck’s part-time degree students come from London households with an income of £25,000 or less; we know this because it is the criterion for receiving the Birkbeck Bursary (our generous financial support package).

17.The average intensity of study for a part-time degree student in the UK is

around 50%. At this study intensity, it takes 6 years to do a degree. Birkbeck’s part-time students study at 75% intensity and complete in 4

VAL0073

  

years; Birkbeck’s full-time students study at 100% intensity and complete in 3 years.

18.One key way we have been able to support busy part-time students is by teaching them over three terms, rather than two. This also allows students to be assessed on an ongoing basis and for feedback to be given quickly. The learning hours associated with each module we teach are weighted to credits, comprising an innovative combination of lectures, seminars, tutorials, online engagement and independent study, to fit our students’ needs and limited availability. Teaching students from the wide variety of backgrounds that we get about at Birkbeck is more resource intensive (than a classroom dominated by 18 year old school leavers).

19.One of the challenges of supporting part-time and evening study students is the level of service required to support these students. Typically students wish to meet teaching staff an hour before their lectures and wish to use Student Services in the same way. We take measures to counter this by, for example ensuring there is support staff cross-over between 5 & 6pm in order to be available to students as they arrive at Birkbeck from work or home.

20.In recent years Birkbeck has reached out further into the community to deliver our courses. As well as our Bloomsbury site in Central London we teach at University Square Stratford (USS) in East London and 639 Tottenham High Road in Haringey reaching out to disadvantaged communities in London by offering access to higher education courses. This is in addition to our many links with Further Education (FE) Colleges across London.

Senior management pay in universities

21.As with most higher education institutions senior pay, in particular the Master’s salary (Birkbeck equivalent of Vice-Chancellor), this is settled by a remuneration committee made up of independent lay governors. We use sector benchmarking data and routinely publish salaries over £100,000 in our financial information.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

22.Birkbeck is supportive of the notion of a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and gained a Silver rating in the most recent exercise. Our student population is a majority part-time and studying in the evening. The crucial difference from other majority part-time providers is that we offer face to

VAL0073

  

face to lectures and seminars. Birkbeck also offer ‘accelerated’ part-time degrees where a degree can be earnt in three years but by studying in the evening.

23.While this is quite a tight time scale it does allow students to work during the day in meaningful employment which would be difficult under two year degree proposals.

24.Our ‘accelerated’ part-time degrees undertaken in three years were a way of Birkbeck adapting to a loss of income arising from the decision in 2008/9 to bring in Equivalent and Lower Level Qualification (ELQ) exemptions. In other words those who already hold an undergraduate degree would not be permitted from receiving funding for a further course. While this seems fair on the face of it has reduced the amount of re-skilling opportunities available to people, particularly with the higher £9,000 fee. Many ELQ students would be those wishing to switch career or develop skills eg: STEM graduates wishing to learn Business skills to grown their company rather than ‘leisure students’. We would like to see exemption s for students studying ELQ qualification in Law, Economics and Managements (LEM) as well as the current STEM exemptions.

The role of the Office for Students

25.Birkbeck lobbied extensively during the Higher Education and Research Bill proceedings to ensure that part-time learners were expressly included in the remit of the Office for Students (OfS). While we did not secure our own amendment through Baroness Garden of Frognal in the Lords stages, we were pleased to see that the Government introduced their own amendment to ensure that the new Office for Students pays due regard to a diverse range of ‘types of provider, higher education courses and means by which they are provided (for example, full-time or part-time study, distance learning or accelerated courses)’. This gives us some reassurance that the interests of part-time students will be a priority for the OfS: which is particularly important given the decline in part-time student numbers in recent years, and the role that part-time plays in widening participation.

26.Birkbeck still has a number of questions about how the Office for Students will operate. While the Chair and Chief Executive have been appointed at the time of writing many senior roles still need to be filled in addition to a full complement of board members (only six have been appointed so far). Many operating policies have yet to be decided and we await further consultations from the OfS and Department for Education. A particularly pressing concern for Birkbeck is precisely how the new subscription model will work. Are OfS subscribers going to be charged a fee per head or per

VAL0073

  

full-time equivalent (FTE)? For an institution where we have a majority of part-time students this is a crucial detail. The new fee structure needs to be incorporated into institutional finances ahead of time so the sooner we receive clarity on this matter the better we are able to plan.

27.Birkbeck is open-minded about whether the OfS will provide greater accountability and value for money for students. There has to be an acceptance by the OfS that the numbers of providers are immensely varied and its focus should be on value-added and outcomes for students.

 

October 2017

VAL0070

 

Written Evidence submitted by Bright Blue

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

1. The best available evidence suggests the average graduate earns significantly more than a non-graduate, with current estimates at roughly £168,000 more over a lifetime for men and £252,000 more over a lifetime for women, net of tax and student loan repayments.1 There is also robust evidence demonstrating considerable non-financial benefits to individuals attending university.2 If, however, individuals earn a modest salary when graduating, the repayment scheme of student loans protects them.

2. Repayments are income-contingent, at 9 per cent of your gross salary above

£21,000 a year: if you are a low earner, you pay next to, if not, nothing each month. If you are a low or even middle earner over a lifetime, the state writes off your student loan repayments after 30 years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that 77% of those currently taking out student loans will not pay them off in full after the maximum repayment period.3 Unquestionably, despite the significant expansion in undergraduate numbers in recent decades, the UK Government should still be encouraging and aiming for more people to attend university.

3. The new Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset - which uses

HMRC and Student Loans Company data to accurately link nearly all graduate salaries to the institutions attended - is to be welcomed, since it will provide much richer and more accurate date on destination data than the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey (DLHE). DLHE data, especially after 3 and half years, stems from small and unrepresentative samples.4 Universities should in future use LEO not DLHE data in their Key Information Sets when reporting their employment and salary data, which they are obliged to publish.

4. Even with LEO data, we will not be able to see what universities are genuinely adding to the future salary prospects of their students. Much of the reported salaries may be to do with factors that are nothing to do with the quality of the student experience offered by an institution. Universities have different entry requirements, so the typical prior attainment of their students varies. Equally, some universities have student cohorts with better job-

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229498/bis-13-899-the-impact-of-university-degrees-on-the-lifecycle-of-earnings-further-analysis.pdf. 2 http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf. 3 https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN211.pdf. 4 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/what-value-university.  

VAL0070

 

enhancing networks, or have reputations – possibly dated - that affect employers decision-making. That is why the future reporting of average salaries for university courses in Key Information Sets should be as a premium, measuring against people with similar prior attainment and career destination who did not attend that institution. It would still not show perfectly how institutions are adding to students’ salaries, but it would certainly be a fairer indication than now.

5. The government subsidy on student loans is currently estimated to be between 20 pence to 25 pence for every £1 lent.5 This subsidy is caused by the large proportion of graduates not earning enough in 30 years to repay their student loans in full. The subsidy wouldn’t be so high if nearly all universities charged less and didn’t cluster their fees around the now maximum of £9,250 a year. Indeed, when direct state subsidy of universities was reduced by £2.9 billion from 2010-11, it was calculated that universities only needed to on average raise their fees to £7,000 a year to compensate.6 They can get away with this because students are not price sensitive when they don’t pay fees upfront. But, also, they are exposed too little financial risk: it is government rather than universities that will write off the student loans of a forecasted three quarters of graduates after 30 years.

6. There are several expensive institutions producing graduates with earnings

that mean their student loans must be subsidised, costing the taxpayer a lot of money. Thanks to the new LEO dataset, it is now possible to expose such universities. Institutions producing a disproportionate number of graduates who will need their student loans subsidised should contribute a levy to government. This could deter over-pricing or, at least, reduce the government subsidy on student loans.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

7. School leavers should not be, and indeed do not seem to be, put off higher education because of £9,250 a year tuition fees. A record number of school leavers — including from disadvantaged backgrounds — now go to university.7 It is, quite frankly, a lie to claim that tuition fees and student loans are unaffordable. The repayment system is designed in a way that makes this an impossibility. Undergraduate students do not pay anything for the tuition they receive while they are studying, payment only kicks in afterwards when they are earning a salary of above £21,000 a year. When graduates do repay, repayments are income-contingent, at 9% of your gross salary above £21,000 a year. If you are a low earner, you pay next to, if not, nothing each month. If you are a low or even middle earner over a lifetime, the state writes off your student loan repayments after 30 years. Even

5 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-01-27.24589.h&s=speaker%3A24895#g24589.r0. 6 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/ryan-shorthouse-fees-put-universities-to-the-test-over-value-for-money-1-3121534. 7 researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf

VAL0070

 

though a graduate will see more money taken off their gross salary than a non-graduate because of student-loan repayments, they are still earning much more than non-graduates on average in the first place because of their university studies. Saving may be made a little more difficult for graduates because of student-loan repayments, but it is still much easier for them to do so on average than for non-graduates.

8. To cover living costs at university, students receive maintenance support

loans from government of up to £8,200 a year (even higher if in London), which is much more generous than in the past. As with tuition fees, they repay only if and when they are earning a reasonable salary upon graduation. Those who are disabled or have children are entitled to additional government grants. If maintenance loans or other possible sources of incomes (such as from employment) are unobtainable or insufficient during their studies, students should be entitled to and be granted hardship funds from their university.

9. This system is fairer than restoring maintenance grants because this would

mean taxpayers – most of whom earn much less than graduates – paying for the maintenance of students, rather than well-paid graduates. In addition, a significant proportion of awarded maintenance grants were to students from affluent but separated families, since students could notify the Student Loans Company of the income of only one, low-earning parent, which is a poor use of public money. However, it is concerning that the amount of bursaries granted by universities has fallen in recent years.8 Universities have sufficient funds to provide hardship funds for those students who are genuinely struggling with living costs and are in danger of dropping out of university as a result.

10. Post-secondary school, full-time Higher Education (HE) study is not, and

should not be, the only route into university. Worryingly, there has been a significant decline in the number of part-time HE entrants in English universities in recent years. Recent Bright Blue research has revealed that 37% of English adults aged 18 or above with no experience of HE have considered part-time HE at some point in the past five years but ultimately did not pursue it.9 The biggest barrier to their participation was financial. This is unsurprising because the financial support available to part-time HE students has reduced in recent years and remains inadequate.

11. The recession which began in 2008–09 has led to lower wages and employers

cutting back on training and development budgets. In particular, since 2010-11 there have been reductions in the budgets of public sector organisations. In 2012–13, some undergraduate part-time HE students did become eligible for government-backed tuition fee loans. This was a welcome move. Nevertheless, the majority of part-time HE undergraduates did not meet the

8 https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN211.pdf. 9 http://www.brightblue.org.uk/images/goingparttimereport.pdf.  

VAL0070

 

eligibility criteria for these loans, because they were either undertaking an equivalent or lower qualification, or a course that was not at the minimum ‘intensity’. So, in recent times, the majority of part-time HE entrants have faced higher tuition fees with no government support and less employer support.

12. All eligible adults should be able to access a lifetime HE tuition fee loan

account from government to pay for the tuition of any HE course – full-time or part-time – throughout their lives. The size of the loan account should be determined by the government through consultation. Presently, full-time and some part-time students will be able to access government-backed loans for undergraduate degrees, postgraduate degrees and PhDs. In this proposed system, all full-time and part-time students will be able to access government-backed loans for equivalent or lower qualifications, for an institutional credit, and when they are aged 30 or over.

13. In order to minimise the costs to government of this, you could make the

parameters for the repayment of the lifetime HE tuition fee loan account stricter (for example, the minimum salary threshold for repayment or the interest rate attached to tuition fee loans) for every new qualification obtained, or when the student is older.10

14. To support the extension of student loans to everyone wishing to undertake a

HE qualification aged 18 or above, the government could also minimise its subsidy costs by introducing a ‘graduate levy’ on large graduate employers. The government should consult on the size of the levy and the companies it should apply to. The graduate levy will prevent some employers from gaining a ‘free-ride’ by recruiting employees who were funded by their previous employer to do lifetime learning. It also ensures all large graduate employers contribute to the cost of a system which they are major beneficiaries of.

15. Just as there is a strong argument for making graduates who benefit

significantly from HE pay more through their student loan repayment profile than other graduates, so too is there a strong argument for making employers who benefit significantly from HE participation – specifically, those who recruit a considerably high proportion of graduates – pay more through this graduate levy than other employers.11

Senior management pay in universities

16. The average increase and rate of UK vice-chancellor remuneration – which includes pay, perks, property and pensions – has rocketed over the past few decades. Average salaries continue to rise at a rate much faster than other academic staff – doubly so over the past year.12 The average vice-chancellor

10 http://www.brightblue.org.uk/images/goingparttimereport.pdf. 11 http://www.brightblue.org.uk/images/goingparttimereport.pdf.  12 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/times-higher-education-v-c-pay-survey-2017.  

VAL0070

 

now earns, including pension contributions, £280,877 a year.13 Research has shown that the success of universities depends on the hard work of all its staff and students, not just a star performer at the top.14 So it is unethical that the rate of growth in the remuneration of Vice-Chancellors in recent years has been significantly higher than all other university staff.

17. Universities are charities and public services whose success and growth in

recent decades is heavily dependent on government support, either through teaching and research grants, or subsidised student loans. Although direct state subsidy fell from 2010-2011, it was more than compensated for by the lifting of the cap on undergraduate tuition fees to £9,000 per year in 2012-13. In this decade, most public services – including in the education sector – have experienced significant real-terms cuts to their revenue. Universities have experienced the exact opposite. The growth of Vice-Chancellor remuneration has been disproportionate.

18. The Government has consistently warned universities that the pay of vice-

chancellors needs restraining. The Minister for Universities has just announced that the Office for Students will be able to fine institutions if the remuneration of their vice-chancellors cannot be justified by exceptional performance. The Government is right to use the levers it has to enforce restraint. But it could go further. To charge over £6,000 a year in tuition fees, universities have to compile and achieve targets on widening access in Access Agreements. Government also wants universities to set up or sponsor state schools to charge above £6,000 a year. A new rule should be applied: universities should only be able to charge above this amount if the remuneration of vice-chancellors is proven to be proportionate and justifiable.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

19. It is unclear just how much value for money students are getting from universities from paying higher tuition fees: there has been no real improvement on common measures of quality such as class size, contact time and student satisfaction since fees were just over £1,000 a year in 2005-06.15 Despite the lifting of student number controls, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of universities have strong demand for their courses. This means reliable funding for teaching; on the other hand, funding for research grants remains highly competitive. There needs to be stronger financial incentives for universities to focus on raising teacher quality. The aforementioned levy on universities producing a disproportionate number of graduates who will need their student loans subsidised should help.

13 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/university-vice-chancellors-average-pay-now-exceeds-275000. 14 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10734-010-9311-0. 15 See HEPI’s annual student academic experience survey. 

VAL0070

 

20. Contextualised data in needed in the reporting of degree classifications, usually in league tables, that students obtain at different universities. Raw, these results are misleading. The higher proportion of top degrees may be more of a reflection of higher ability students, rather than the quality of teaching at an institution. So, a score is needed which measures how well students progress from A-level to the end of a degree, as the Guardian University guide does.16 A robust Value-Add score to show how teacher quality affects attainment in different degrees should be in universities’ Key Information Sets.

About Bright Blue Bright Blue is an independent think tank that champions liberal conservatism. Our work is guided by five research themes: social reform; immigration and integration; ageing society; green conservatism; and human rights. We were shortlisted for the 2016 and 2017 UK social policy think tank of the year and UK environment and energy think tank of the year in the prestigious Prospect Magazine annual awards. For further information about Bright Blue or our submission, please contact Ryan Shorthouse on ryan@brightblue.org.uk or 07754 672233; or visit our website: www.brightblue.org.uk. October 2017

16 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/may/22/key-to-university-guide.

   

VAL0018  

Written Evidence submitted by Brightside Brightside is a social mobility charity. We use online mentoring to provide the young people that need it most with knowledge, support and connections to help them make confident and informed decisions that enable them to fulfil their potential. We work with over 60 different partners, including leading universities and businesses, to mentor over 10,000 young people a year. More information is available at www.brightside.org.uk Current picture

1.1 While there are now record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education, deeper analysis of the data reveals worrying trends.

1.2 Students from the most disadvantaged areas are still less likely than wealthier students to enter the most selective institutions associated with better employment prospects and higher salaries after graduation, less likely to complete their course and less likely to gain a first or upper second class degree.i

Financial barriers

2.1 The pernicious link between social background and higher education outcomes demonstrates that disadvantaged students are not getting the same ‘value’ from higher education as their peers. Since the replacement of maintenance grants with loans, disadvantaged students are now borrowing more and thus ultimately paying more for their degree.

2.2 Brightside urges the government to reinstate maintenance grants

for poorer students as quickly as possible. We also advocate for financial support for disadvantaged students from the age of 16 to give more students from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to study the post-16 qualifications that can lead them to HE in the first place (along the lines of the old Education Maintenance Allowance).

Attainment and social capital

3.1 Prior attainment is crucial to entering highly selective universities in particular, yet the attainment gap between those eligible for free school meals and their peers opens early in childhood and widens throughout secondary educationii. Improved teaching in disadvantaged schools should be the most important focus for reducing the attainment gap (though standardised use of contextual data by universities should also be used to address admissions disparities.)

3.2 In addition, disadvantaged and first generation students often don’t have

access to the same levels of social capital in the form of support from family and friends that helps more privileged students navigate the university application system. It is a fallacy to suggest that such

   

VAL0018  

students lack aspirations – they lack the knowledge, skills and capital to meet their aspirations. This means they may ‘self-select’ out of a process that seems too daunting, or make sub-optimal choices that do not reflect their true potential.

Support across the student lifecycle These are complex and inter-linked issues which require complex and inter-linked solutions across the entire student lifecycle.

‐ Accurate data

More accurate data is required to identify not just the geographical areas and schools (as with the current National Collaborative Outreach Programme) but also the individual students most in need of outreach work.

‐ Tailored information, advice and guidance

Students should be targeted with better information, advice and guidance tailored to their needs. This IAG should begin well before students make the GCSE choices which can determine the paths available to them in the future. Such crucial, life-enhancing advice and guidance should be available for every child, rather than the current capricious system where such advice depends upon the school you attend. We therefore call for a statutory right for every child to receive careers information, advice, guidance and work experience opportunities – with schools being held accountable by Ofsted for the delivery of this service.

‐ Development of social capital

Mentoring schemes help young people develop their knowledge of higher education and social capital. Mentoring can also help young people to enhance life skills such as confidence and communication necessary for success in higher education and beyond, but which recent research from Sutton Trustiii says disadvantaged students have less opportunity to develop during their education. Lack of social capital can also affect a student’s time at university: researchiv shows a ‘sense of belonging’ is crucial to preventing students dropping out, yet some disadvantaged students report feeling isolated and out of place in the predominantly middle class environment of many universities, partly explaining their higher non-continuation rates. Failure to join networks at university can also mean disadvantaged students fail to develop the contacts that can help them to advance their careers after university, partly explaining the disproportionate numbers of privately-educated individuals in the leading professions.

‐ Support for disadvantaged students while at university

   

VAL0018  

Financial support such as bursaries and fee waivers should be better targeted and evaluated, to ensure that students receive the most effective assistance. There also need to be greater transparency around the different types of financial support offered by different institutions, to ensure students are informed around which most suits their specific needs. In addition, these students may need greater help managing their finances, with a recent reportv showing first generation students are more likely to face financial difficulties than others. Widening participation impact and evaluation

4.1 Tackling these issues will require universities, schools, government and other parties to work together more effectively than at present. While we would welcome more financial support for disadvantaged students, it is also important to ensure that existing funding is targeted and spent effectively.

4.2 According to OFFA Access Agreements, universities wishing to charge over

£6,000 for tuition fees plan on spending a combined total of £833m on widening participation in 2017/18vi, but there is little evidence these large sums of money are being evaluated properly.

4.3 While there are many excellent examples of proven impactful and

evidence-based interventions delivered by organisations such as Brightside, The Access Project, Into University and The Brilliant Club in partnership with university widening participation departments, we believe that the sector as a whole remains patchy and un-coordinated, and needs to produce more robust data on outcomes.

4.4 This would enable the most effective interventions to be identified and

expanded, increasing efficiency and impact. Funding could then be channelled towards a smaller number of programmes and organisations with proven track records, enabling them to build on existing interventions and pioneer new innovations, rather than distributing it amongst interventions of varying effectiveness.

4.5 As a member of the Fair Education Alliancevii, Brightside is leading

work to push the sector to embrace the evaluation of widening participation activity, based on a common set of sector-wide data, benchmarks and metrics, to more accurately measure impact on young people’s attainment and behaviour. We also support OFFA’s research into evaluation, and Universities UK’s development of an Evidence and Impact Exchange.

4.6 Collaborative outreach mechanisms represent the best way of achieving

maximum impact. The National Collaborative Outreach Programme is a very important place-based social mobility programme, encouraging universities and others develop regional outreach infrastructure comprising universities, schools and businesses. It is

   

VAL0018  

important that such infrastructure is permanent and embedded to allow long-term impact of such programmes.

i National Strategy For Access and Student Success, HEFCE, OFFA, 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299689/bis-14-516-national-strategy-for-access-and-student-success.pdf ii Andrews, J, Hutchinson, J and Robinson, D, Closing The Gap? Trends in Educational Attainment and Disadvantage, Education Policy Institute, 2017 https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Closing-the-Gap_EPI.pdf iii Cullinane, C and Montacue, R, Life Lessons, Sutton Trust, 2017 https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf iv Thomas, L What Works? Student Retention and Success, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, HEFCE, 2012 https://www.phf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/What-Works-Summary-report.pdf v Everyone In: Insights From A Diverse Student Population, Unite Students, 2017 http://www.unite-group.co.uk/media/news/16-10-17/everyone-in-report vi Woolley, D, Evaluation in Where next for widening participation and fair access? Brightside, Higher Education Policy Institute, 2017 http://brightside.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FINAL-WEB_HEPI-Widening-Participation-Report-98.pdf vii Fair Education Alliance, Report Card 2016/17, 2017 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/543e665de4b0fbb2b140b291/t/59af2a4cccc5c50550ff4bd5/1504651878199/FEA+Report+Card+2016-17.pdf     

October 2017

                                                            

VAL0057

Written Evidence submitted by CBI, Confederation of British Industry

1. The CBI is the UK’s leading business organisation, speaking for some 190,000 businesses that together employ around a third of the private sector workforce. We work with policymakers to deliver a healthy environment for businesses to succeed, create jobs and ultimately, drive economic growth and prosperity. The CBI welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

2. The UK’s higher education sector is a key national asset. Our universities play a vital role in ensuring the future success of our country – whether that’s as anchors within their local communities helping to boost regional growth, underpinning the economy through the breadth of their courses, at the cutting edge of new teaching and research methods, or in expanding our links abroad – the sector’s strength lies in its diversity.

3. Developing our education and skills base is one of the most effective strategies for growth the UK can have and businesses recognise the vital role that universities play in helping to ensure the country is equipped with the talent necessary to seize future opportunities.

4. Given the importance of the sector to future economic and social prosperity, it is right that the government ensures that the higher education system represents value for money.

5. To do this successfully going forward, we must:

a. Keep higher education funding independent and sustainable through an income-contingent fee and loan system

b. Use appropriately benchmarked and contextualised performance data, including via the TEF. to clearly communicate the value of different courses

c. Enhance the diversity of provision within higher education so that it is responsive to the needs of both students and employers

1. Keep higher education funding independent and sustainable through

an income-contingent fee and loan system

UK universities are amongst the best in the world and higher education is one of our stronger export sectors. Research by Universities UK has demonstrated that, in 2014-15, our universities earned a total of £13.1 billion in export receipts. But the softer links with the UK that universities drive means that even greater long-term value is driven by the sector than this. To protect our global position and the

positive impact universities have across the UK’s regions and nations, they need to be sustainably funded with a system that allows higher education to be accessible to students from all backgrounds, as well as being affordable to the taxpayer.

1.1. A fair and sustainable system for university funding must balance the costs between graduates – as the primary beneficiaries of a university course – and taxpayers, and enable universities to contribute to prosperity. There are clear and well-evidenced benefits to graduates associated with receiving a university education. According to research by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in October 2013, these include (but are not limited to) higher earnings of around £168,000 for men and £252,000 for women across a graduate’s working life, an increase in the likelihood of being employed by 3.3% points, better mental health and better life satisfaction. Alongside benefits to individuals, there are also substantial wider benefits to the UK as well. As a provider of skills, generating and translating world-class research into new products and services, universities help to spread growth across the UK, with research by Universities UK (UUK) in October 2017 demonstrating that, between 2014-2015, the higher education sector increased the value of graduates’ human capital (i.e. the knowledge and skills they contribute to the labour market) by 28 per cent, undertook £7.9 billion worth of research and supported almost one million jobs in the UK.

1.2. The current income-contingent, time-limited loan system is broadly effective in delivering this outcome and should be preserved. The system has facilitated a considerable expansion in university places with the Resolution Foundation highlighting that in 1996 (prior to the introduction of tuition fees) around 12 per cent of those aged between 16-64 had a degree equivalent qualification or higher, whereas today 30 per cent do. This has coincided with a marked increase in participation from those at the lower end of the income distribution as well with disadvantaged students now 73 per cent more likely to enter university than in 2006. There has also been an increase in the amount of resource available per student, with funding per student at the highest level for 30 years. There is little evidence to suggest the fee and loan system discourages social mobility.

1.3. The system effectively balances the cost between graduates and taxpayers. Importantly, the expansion of higher education has been delivered in a way that is sustainable for taxpayers with the long-run taxpayer contribution for higher education reducing and thereby helping to facilitate greater investment in the wider education and skills system. As the CBI’s pre-Budget letter to the Chancellor stressed, additional resources are needed to protect per pupil funding for the remainder of this Parliament and to replenish schools’ capital budgets. Although hard to forecast precisely, the IFS has estimated that the long-run taxpayer contribution has been reduced by around £1.1 billion when compared to the pre-2011

system. As repayment rates become clearer, further adjustments to the system may be necessary to preserve a fiscal balance, but the basic outline of the system is the right one – and any further changes should seek to preserve the attraction of a university education for those from lower-income backgrounds.

1.4. The focus of concern on access for lower income students should not be fees, but maintenance. The abolition of maintenance grants has meant that the poorest students now graduate with the most amount of debt. Maintenance is a key concern for poorer students, as it is a cost they meet while studying – rather than once they are in employment. Since maintenance grants were converted into loans in 2015, the debt accumulated by the most disadvantaged students has increased substantially. Students from the poorest 40 per cent of families now graduate with debts (on average) of around £57,000 around £14,000 more than students from the richest 30 per cent of families. As the IFS has warned, the greater debt incurred by disadvantaged students may reduce participation from prospective students in the long-term, reversing some of the progress on participation outlined above.

1.5. The government should monitor university participation for the most disadvantaged and reintroduce means-tested maintenance grants if there be a reversal in current trends. The focus of any reforms should be on student finance, not the funding system itself. Whilst there has not yet been a notable decline in participation rates caused by the abolition of maintenance grants, the government should monitor this situation carefully to ensure that the gap in participation rates between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers continues to narrow. As research by the Department for Education from August 2016 has demonstrated, the participation gap between those in receipt of Free School Meals (FSM) compared to those not in receipt of FSM has been steadily declining slowly in recent years, dropping from 19 percentage points in 2005/06 to 17 percentage points in 2013/14. Given their reintroduction would cost around £2 billion, and combined with the need for greater investment elsewhere, maintenance grants for higher education students should be considered in light of the wider education and skills system. Should participation amongst disadvantaged students start to decline, the CBI believes that reintroducing means-tested maintenance grants should be a priority, rather than changing the fee system.

2. Use appropriately benchmarked and contextualised performance data,

including via the TEF, to clearly communicate the value of different courses

Graduate outcomes data has an important role to play in providing greater transparency and information to prospective students however any reforms based on the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data and Teaching Excellence

Framework (TEF) must recognise and protect the diversity of disciplines already provided by the higher education sector.

2.1. To allow prospective students to make an informed choice about where and what to study, information on graduate employment outcomes should be expanded to cover course studied and institution attended. Preparation for work is an important element of higher education and so effectively measuring graduate outcomes is crucial. With students increasingly asking whether a university education represents value for money and growing concern about graduate outcomes, it is important that university applicants have access to information about graduate outcomes based on the course studied as well as the institution attended. The government’s Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has rightly sought to measure employment outcomes for students at different institutions and, in doing so, helped to enabled greater student choice.

2.2. Previous ways of collecting data on graduate outcomes were inadequate and failed to effectively capture the trajectory of graduates and thus the information needed to make a genuine choice. The previous primary method of collecting this information – the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey – measured graduate employment six months after graduation meaning it only ever captured a snapshot of graduate outcomes and could not provide an accurate picture of trajectory that graduates undertake following university. In addition, this data failed to demonstrate how the graduate premium differed based on the course and institution attended, making it hard for a prospective student to make a genuine choice of where to study. Consequently, we welcome the government’s recognition of the need for more sustained graduate outcomes measured over a longer time period.

2.3. The Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data provides greater transparency and information for students and employers, helping to demonstrate to what extent a university degree represents value for money. In linking up tax, benefits, and student loans data, the information produced by LEO data provides the longitudinal data that universities have previously desired whilst also providing an important information set that can allow students to make a more considered and informed choice when deciding on post-16 routes. Crucially, this helps create more empowered students as it demonstrates graduate outcomes based on both course studied and institution attended. Particularly in the context of value for money, research by the IFS has demonstrated that, although the graduate premium varies based on gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background, there is still significant private benefit from attending university. In addition, this richer data set also allows for more detailed insight into the challenges within the graduate labour market which can then be addressed much more directly. This is the case with the gender pay gap, with LEO

data showing a disparity in the earning outcomes between men and women across every subject, barring only English Studies.

2.4. Any changes based on graduate outcomes data however must be dealt with sensitively and appropriately in order to protect the diversity of the higher education system. To ensure a genuine choice for students is maintained, it is important that any changes to the TEF based on graduate outcomes data recognises the breath and diversity of universities. Many graduates want a 'good job' but this does not always just equate to earnings and there are many factors that influence salary which are beyond the control of higher education institutions – such as gender, ethnicity, social class and prior attainment, as well as location, industry and the overall performance of the economy. As the CBI has argued previously, some universities with a strong regional presence are in areas with few ‘graduate jobs’, and on graduating students may choose to remain in the region initially in non-graduate positions, or as entrepreneurs. While their career prospects may be enhanced by their studies, initially this will not appear to be the case.

2.5. To protect choice, graduate outcomes metrics should be benchmarked more effectively to ensure that universities are not penalised due to their student intake, subject specialisms or location. Whilst we welcome the government’s recognition over the need for benchmarking metrics relating to graduate outcomes, the use of a threshold of £21,000 will still penalise certain institutions based on their student intake, subject specialisms (such as those who supply a high percentage of the nursing, midwifery and teaching professions, or who specialise in the arts or creative industries) and those in areas with a less buoyant graduate jobs market. It is essential that the use of any metrics based on graduate outcomes recognises this fact and uses intelligent benchmarks based on relevant metrics in order to protect the diversity of the higher education sector against any distortive impacts that a nationwide flat salary threshold could have.

3. Enhance the diversity of provision within higher education so that it

is responsive to the needs of both students and employers As the world of work changes, so too must our universities. To ensure higher education can continue in its vital role as a skills provider for the future, more needs to be done to diversify the forms of provision on offer and allow additional routes to higher skills.

3.1. With future prosperity reliant on the skills and ingenuity of our people, no industry has a bigger part to play in supporting economic and social growth than our world-leading higher education sector. As well as being central to the UK’s innovation ecosystem, the higher education sector will be vital in helping to develop and supply the skills pipeline necessary to face future challenges, with the value that graduates bring to business being clear. According to the latest

CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey, over the past year, more than eight in ten businesses (85 per cent) have maintained or increased their levels of graduate recruitment. In addition, figures from the Department for Education for England make clear, graduates have consistently had lower unemployment rates than non-graduates, with employment rates for graduates in 2016 being 88 per cent for postgraduates and 87 per cent for graduates compared to 70 per cent of non-graduates.

3.2. With the world of work changing, the UK urgently needs to address its skills shortages. Businesses are already reporting skills shortages across the UK’s nations and regions – and when it comes to filling skilled roles in the future, many are not confident they will be able to find sufficient recruits. Whilst it is hard to predict how access to skilled migrants might change as the UK leaves European Union, it is clear that additional routes to higher skills will be of increasing importance as three quarters of businesses (75 per cent) expect to have more job openings for people with higher-level skills over the coming years with just 2 per cent expecting to have fewer.

3.3. To help support more people into higher skills, universities and the government need to do more to develop non-standard ways of engaging with higher education. Alongside the traditional routes, such as first-degree courses and postgraduate study, the government – and business – should do more to encourage flexible provision within universities. This includes, but is not limited to, part-time study, degree apprenticeships, sandwich degrees, accelerated degrees, distance learning, work-related learning and mixed modes of study. The CBI has welcomed the government’s commitment to introduce income-contingent maintenance loans for part-time students, however this support also need to be made available to those undertaking distance learning as well as lower level qualifications (such as Certificates, Diplomas and Foundation Degrees). This is essential given the diversity of students who require non-standard university provision. Due to a host of other factors – such as work commitments, caring responsibilities, physical and/or mental health issues (to name just a few) – non-standard provision is often the only way that these groups can access higher education and develop their skills. As we move towards an economy which increasingly needs more high skilled workers, this is an urgent and pressing concern. As the 2017 CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey outlined, due to the UK’s changing occupational structure, nearly half of all jobs (47 per cent) by 2024 will require workers to have completed some form of higher education (level 4 and higher, though not necessarily at level 6), and with the IPPR reporting in July 2017 that two-thirds of the workforce of 2030 have already left full-time education, allowing workers to retrain whilst in employment will be essential. 3.3.1. For example, Coventry University and Unipart Manufacturing Group

have come together to create the Institute for Advanced Manufacturing

and Engineering (AME) which represents a bespoke ‘faculty on the factory floor’ aiming to develop industry-ready graduates. Or Middlesex University who, as a ‘University for Skills’, are developing a range of Apprenticeship Degrees in Sales, Management, Digital Solutions, Building Information Modelling (BIM) Management, Construction, Creative and Aviation.

3.4. The Apprenticeship Levy should be developed into a more

flexible ‘skills levy’ so that it can better meet the needs of business and learners. The CBI has welcomed degree apprenticeships as an exciting new route into higher education which could prove attractive to those who would not traditionally undertake degree-level study. However the 61 per cent decline in apprenticeship starts since the introduction of the Levy underlines why the CBI has consistently called for the Levy to be made more flexible. A more flexible levy could allow higher education institutions to use funds towards a variety of different types of training that better meets the needs of our economy as well as students themselves. This includes supporting more part-time provision, employer-sponsored sandwich degrees and postgraduate researcher training as well as extending support for those undertaking level 4 qualifications.

October 2017

VAL0004  

Written evidence submitted by Central Careers Hub Govt Data lays bare the Graduate Dividend myth with Law and Business graduates likely to suffer poor earnings

One Law degree at a West Midlands university produced 270 graduates in 2008/9 and 5 years later their median earnings are £19,600p.a (2)

One London Law school produced 225 Law graduates whose median earnings 5 years after graduation are £20,100p.a. (2)

One university in the north west produced Business 545 graduates in 2008/9 with median earnings 5 years later of £20,500 (1)

One university in London produced 305 Business graduates in 2008/9 with median earnings of £20,200 in 2014/15. (1)

1. Central Careers Hub have released this data in an understandable format and brings into question the viability of some courses.

2. Unique datasets available on the Central Careers Hub website show that a

significant number of Law and Business graduates from some universities have worryingly low median earnings 5 years after graduation. Andy Gardner, Careers Adviser and Operations Manager at CCH says, “these graduates, who have often entered these degrees because they want do a vocational course that leads to a well-paid and professional career, are earning salaries that would suggest that they are achieving neither. We should reassess why we are funding so many students to do these courses, when so many of them do not look like they are achieving their goals.”

3. Dr Andrew McGettigan, Author of The Great University Gamble says more

kindly, “it is probably ill-advised to choose Law or Business, simply because they are professionally oriented - without looking at how the outcomes vary by institution.”

4. This data comes from a little-known spreadsheet produced by the

Department for Education, called Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO). The CCH datasets drawn from this spreadsheet allow us to see what a graduate in a subject sector from a certain university earns at lower-quartile, median and upper quartile 5 years after graduation. You can also drill down into the LEO data and see the size of some of the cohorts - one Law degree at a West Midlands university produced 270 Law graduates in 2008/9 and 5 years later their median earnings are £19,600p.a. Being based in London apparently has no impact, as one London Law school produced 225 graduates whose median earnings 5 years after graduation are £20,100. The outcome for business graduates is similar. One university in the north west produced 545 graduates in 2008/9 with median earnings of £20,500, one in London produced 305 graduates with median earnings of £20,200 in 2014/15. The 2014/15 median salary for all those in their mid to late twenties (grads and non-grads) was £20,800 wonkHE.

5. To sum up Andy says “in spite of these graduates spending 3 years of their

lives working hard for a degree, taking on loans (which many of them will not yet be paying back yet) and the government funding huge amounts in loans,

VAL0004  

many of these graduates have not even reached median earnings for the general population of a similar age. We have to say – what is the point? A sixth former interested in a Business Degree could be considering a Chartered Management Degree Apprenticeship recognised by the Chartered Management Institute or a Digital Marketing apprenticeship with Just IT for which they will be paid a wage and there will be no loans!”

CCH recommends the following:

Professionally orientated degrees with low earnings should have their places rationed and only be allowed to increase numbers with Degree Apprenticeship places.

An independent research organisation analyses what went on with these graduates and why their earnings are so low.

Universities whose courses are affected by low earnings should be forced

to massively expand their Careers and Employability services (one-to-one guidance, employability skills, placement years).

A national Career Guidance service in England (which doesn’t currently

exist) which will provide one-to-one guidance and a careers education programme to all sixth formers/college leavers and others so they understand this data and are aware of the range of apprenticeship, career and HE options open to them.

An end to the UCAS pipeline run by many schools. Schools and colleges

to concentrate on providing impartial careers education and guidance. September 2017

VAL0004  

Appendix 1 Business and Admin 5 Years After Graduation HE provider Prior

attainment band

Number of graduates

Earnings – median 2014-15 (£)

The University of Oxford 1 35 71700 The University of Cambridge 1 30 49600 London School of Economics and Political Science

1 100 48300

The University of Warwick 1 180 45100 The University of Bath 1 135 44600 Loughborough University 1 230 41400 The City University 1 215 41200 The University of Bristol 1 30 40300 University of Nottingham 1 300 39200 The University of Reading 1 160 38700 King's College London 1 60 36300 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

1 35 35800

Aston University 1 490 35600 The University of Manchester 1 410 34800 The University of Leeds 1 235 34600 The University of Southampton 1 115 34300 The University of Sussex 1 45 33500 The University of Lancaster 1 250 33300 University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1 370 33200 The University of Sheffield 1 215 33000 The University of Exeter 1 105 32700 Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

1 105 32700

The University of Birmingham 1 220 32600 The Open University in England16 2 135 32100 The University of Surrey 2 235 32100 Oxford Brookes University 2 440 31400 University of Durham 1 180 31200 The University of Kent 2 265 30800 Birkbeck College x 65 30700 Bournemouth University 2 780 30500 The University of Brighton 2 405 30200 Queen Mary University of London 2 230 30100 The University of Essex 2 155 30000 Brunel University London 2 340 29400 The University of Portsmouth 2 425 29400 The University of Liverpool 1 185 28500 University of the Arts, London 2 275 28400

VAL0004  

University of the West of England, Bristol

2 515 28400

The Nottingham Trent University 2 515 28100 Royal Agricultural University 2 40 27700 The University of Leicester 2 65 27500 The University of East Anglia 2 225 27100 Harper Adams University 2 15 27100 Kingston University 2 530 26900 University of Hertfordshire 2 620 26600 The University of Keele 2 115 26300 University of Northumbria at Newcastle

2 505 25600

The University of Winchester 2 80 25600 York St John University 2 130 25600 Roehampton University 3 105 25500 Canterbury Christ Church University

2 165 25400

University of Gloucestershire 2 250 25400 University of Plymouth 2 385 25000 The University of Westminster 2 710 24900 The University of Hull 2 275 24800 Sheffield Hallam University 2 820 24700 The Arts University Bournemouth 2 20 24600 Leeds Beckett University 2 990 24600 Southampton Solent University 3 425 24600 The Manchester Metropolitan University

2 1190 24400

University of Worcester 3 55 24400 The University of Lincoln 2 305 24200 De Montfort University 2 570 24100 Buckinghamshire New University 3 220 24000 St Mary's University, Twickenham 3 35 23900 Anglia Ruskin University 2 160 23700 Writtle College 3 20 23700 Bath Spa University 2 65 23600 The University of Sunderland 3 330 23600 University of Chester 2 170 23500 Coventry University 2 320 23400 The University of West London 3 295 23400 Leeds Trinity University 2 40 23300 The University of Northampton 3 195 23200 London Metropolitan University 3 745 23100 The University of Greenwich 3 635 22900 Liverpool John Moores University 2 415 22700 The University of Huddersfield 2 345 22600

VAL0004  

Middlesex University 3 720 22500 The University of Chichester 2 30 22300 Staffordshire University 2 180 22300 Teesside University 3 170 22100 Birmingham City University 3 450 22000 The University of Bradford 2 145 22000 London South Bank University 3 395 22000 University of Bedfordshire 3 155 21700 University Campus Suffolk 2 65 21500 Edge Hill University 3 90 21400 University of Derby 3 255 21200 The University of Salford 2 340 21100 University College Birmingham 3 235 20900 The University of Central Lancashire

2 545 20500

The University of East London 3 305 20200 University of Cumbria 2 130 19900 The University of Bolton 2 60 19600 Liverpool Hope University 3 80 19500 The University of Wolverhampton 3 335 19400

VAL0004  

Appendix 2 Law 5 Years after Graduation HE provider Prior

attainment band

Number of graduates

Earnings – median 2014-15(£)

The University of Oxford 1 225 61400 The University of Cambridge 1 170 54700 London School of Economics and Political Science

1 75 47700

University College London 1 95 47200 The University of Warwick 1 110 41600 University of Durham 1 110 40400 University of Nottingham 1 130 37900 The University of Bristol 1 120 37700 King's College London 1 180 37200 The University of Manchester 1 180 35500 The University of Exeter 1 120 34300 The University of Sussex 1 105 33800 The University of Southampton 1 115 33100 Queen Mary University of London 1 160 31400 University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1 125 30700 The University of Surrey 2 80 30700 The University of Birmingham 1 175 30300 The Open University in England16 2 285 30200 Birkbeck College x 80 30100 The University of East Anglia 1 140 30100 Oxford Brookes University 2 95 30000 The University of Reading 1 130 29500 The University of Brighton 2 30 28800 The School of Oriental and African Studies

1 30 28800

Brunel University London 2 125 28000 The University of Sheffield 1 255 27900 The University of Kent 2 310 27600 The City University 2 110 27200 The University of Leeds 1 185 26800 The University of Leicester 1 170 26400 The University of Essex 2 130 26000 University of Northumbria at Newcastle

2 195 25700

Canterbury Christ Church University

3 85 25600

University of Gloucestershire 2 50 25600 The University of Portsmouth 2 65 24800 The University of Westminster 2 240 24800 Bournemouth University 2 135 24700 The University of Liverpool 1 150 24500

VAL0004  

The University of West London 3 50 24300 The University of Lancaster 1 115 24100 Kingston University 2 190 24000 The University of Greenwich 2 65 23800 University of the West of England, Bristol

2 225 23800

Anglia Ruskin University 2 70 23700 The University of Keele 2 100 23700 The Nottingham Trent University 2 255 23600 The University of Hull 2 155 23100 The University of Buckingham 3 35 23000 Sheffield Hallam University 2 210 22700 University of Hertfordshire 2 215 22200 The University of Central Lancashire

2 140 21700

The Manchester Metropolitan University

2 200 21700

Coventry University 2 100 21400 Liverpool John Moores University 2 265 21300 University of Plymouth 2 150 21300 University of Chester 2 60 21200 London South Bank University 3 110 21200 The University of East London 3 145 21100 Leeds Beckett University 2 220 21100 The University of Northampton 3 105 21100 Southampton Solent University 3 55 21100 Staffordshire University 2 165 21000 The University of Sunderland 2 75 21000 Teesside University 3 80 20300 The University of Huddersfield 2 85 20200 London Metropolitan University 3 225 20100 De Montfort University 3 225 20000 Middlesex University 3 115 20000 The University of Lincoln 2 105 19800 Birmingham City University 2 135 19700 Buckinghamshire New University 3 35 19700 The University of Wolverhampton 3 270 19600 Edge Hill University 2 65 19500 University of Derby 3 110 18600 The University of Bolton 3 20 18300 University of Bedfordshire 3 60 17800 The University of Bradford 2 100 17300

VAL0032

Written Evidence submitted by the Chartered ABS The Chartered Association of Business Schools is pleased to respond to the Education Committee’s call for evidence on value for money in higher education. INTRODUCTION

1) The Chartered ABS is the voice of the UK’s business and management education sector. The UK’s business and management education sector represents 1 in 5 university students and contributes £3.25bn to the UK economy. Its management students go on to lead global businesses and its entrepreneurs contribute to our dynamic economy. Its research has an impact across society and helps to turn our capacity for invention into viable businesses. While MBAs may enjoy the highest profile of all business school programmes, they make up a very small proportion of what business schools do.

2) In terms of student numbers, MBAs make up less than 5% of the over

325,000 students studying in business schools in the UK, and this doesn’t take in to account short programmes, often offered under the umbrella of Executive Education, which caters for an increasing number of open and bespoke programmes delivered to employees in both large and small firms. Our members consist of 120 business schools and higher education providers across all of the UK, as well as affiliate stakeholders, corporate members and international partners.

THE CALL

3) The Education Committee has put out a call for evidence into value for money in higher education. The evidence so far is based on the Higher Education Policy Unit and the Higher Education Academy student experience study in 2017. As interesting as this report is, it does not make for comfortable reading for “Business and Administrative Studies” (B&AS), but neither would anyone in a business school be surprised by this. That is not to say that we agree that business schools offer poor value for money.

4) Amongst the study’s findings are that B&AS is seen to be the second

worst in terms of student perception of value for money, with just 28% of students judging their course to have offered value. Social studies scored 1% less, while Medicine and Dentistry scored the top result at 58%.

5) Likewise, 41% of B&AS students said they would have chosen a different course if they knew then what they know now. Only Technology scored worse with 45%. In terms of workload, which seems to have become a proxy for value for money, B&AS scored third worst. Of course, the latter is a purely input measure and not an output measure.

VAL0032

6) The methodology for the Higher Education Policy Unit and the Higher

Education Academy student experience study is questionable. For a start, there is no agreed measure for what constitutes value. While it is interesting to hear views from students about their perceptions it would be unwise to take policy action on the basis of a less than robust approach.

7) Students are unable to make a comparison for themselves simply because

they have only taken the one degree programme. Of course they speak to their peers in other subject areas, but very few will have experienced anything other than their own course, and therefore are unable to make meaningful, relative comparisons across subjects. It would be useful to understand what students in different subject areas classify as offering value. From the reports this is not entirely clear and we all appreciate that value means different things to different people.

8) It is also worth looking at the reality. THE FACTS

9) Business education is the most popular degree subject in UK universities. Business schools do not require expensive equipment of the likes required by medical and engineering departments. As such, business schools are increasingly under pressure to grow to fund other, more expensive, departments elsewhere in the institution and are therefore more likely therefore to provide lectures to large numbers of students at once. This does not mean that they are receiving a poorer education as a result. And it is possible that the business and management students are aware, by the end of their studies, that they have been subsidising the study of their peers in these subjects. Inevitably this could lead to an element of disgruntlement.

10) But it is also worth bearing in mind that:

a) Business school graduates are amongst the most likely to have graduate level jobs after graduation according to both DLHE and LEO data. https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Destination-of-Business-and-Administrative-Studies-students-after-graduation-Jan-2017-1.pdf

b) https://charteredabs.org/leo-tells-us-business-school-graduates/

c) Business and Administrative Studies students are also more likely than most to be in managerial positions.

d) NSS results show that overall Business and Management are mid-table, but do particularly well in terms of personal development and learning

VAL0032

resources. Perhaps this is a reflection that students are expected to take an element of responsibility for their own learning rather than being spoon fed, regardless how attractive that may sound.

e) Many people believe that business schools only offer postgraduate programmes. In fact, fewer than 5% of business and administrative studies students are studying for an MBA, and one in 6 undergraduates study in a business school.

f) Increasingly other subjects are offering joint degrees with business and management, for example engineering. This makes trying to neatly categorise students by subject area is difficult, and likely to get more so.

g) In addition, it is increasingly the case that students from across a wide range of subject areas study a particular unit or make other use of business school facilities. Such a narrow definition of value for money does not take account of this.

h) As an example, business schools offer value to students from across their institutions by setting up incubator spaces, etc.

i) Many also make these available to alumni and local entrepreneurs. In other words, there is value, not only for students, but also for local businesses and the local economy.

j) Business and management are at the forefront of business engagement – both large and small, for example Small Business Charter schools, and therefore offer value even broader than undergraduate students. https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chartered-ABS-Delivering-Value-Report-2.pdf

k) An additional part of this is that it is in business schools that curricula is co-constructed and co-delivered with employers, therefore ensuring value for money for both students and their prospective employers. Students may not always appreciate this at the time, or may just take it for granted, but this does set them apart and as the employment figures show, produce results.

l) More international students study in a business school than any other subject area, creating a rich international dimension to all classes. This does not deny that there are not complications from having such diverse student cohorts, which may impact student perceptions, without impacting outcomes. https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Chartered-ABS-International-Student-Recruitment-2016.pdf

What this means is that a successful university needs a successful business school at the heart of it.

VAL0032

OUTCOMES

11. So why the difference between the perceived value for money and outcomes?

12. There are many possible reasons and without proper research one can only speculate. For one thing, the fact that so many students choose to study business and management leaves the potential for greater dissatisfaction.

13. The myriad of subjects covered under business and administrative studies

also makes analysis difficult. By responding that a relatively large proportion of students may have chosen the ‘wrong’ subject within business and administrative studies, could simply mean, for example, choosing marketing but later deciding that they would have been happier with finance. But this is all speculation as it would be useful to know what subject’s people wish they had chosen instead.

14. It is also possible that students suggesting they didn’t get value for

money were comparing the size of their lecture cohorts with peers in smaller class sizes for some other subjects. Again, this perception does not mean they are getting less value, just potentially less intimate lectures. The perception that class size is a proxy for value for money is false and not based on any evidence.

15. It is often the case that business students have a misunderstanding about

the inclusion and necessity for ‘theory’, rather expecting a purely ‘practice-based’ approach. Business schools, rightly, include both elements. Business students are expected to be or become self-starters and self-directed as part of their preparation to take on leadership and management roles in the future. Or it could be that students’ expectations of outcomes following completion of their degree, are unrealistic.

16. Interestingly, this reported lack of “value for money” has not deterred

increasing numbers of students applying to study in business and management.

17. Without greater in-depth analysis, we would caution against relying too heavily on the value for money report. By other measures, such as employment outcomes, business engagement, etc. business schools offer great value.

October 2017

VAL0075

  

Evidence Submission from the Chartered Management

Institute

Overview

I. The Chartered Management Institute (CMI), the only Chartered professional

body for management and leadership, is delighted to submit written

evidence to this inquiry on value for money in higher education. Our

submission is based on our collaborative work with over 90 university

partners in the UK which is primarily focused on supporting the

employability outcomes of students and apprentices. As such our evidence

focuses on the following three areas of this inquiry: graduate outcomes;

the quality of teaching and social justice.

II. In the current period of profound change, particularly with Brexit meaning

that UK employers will no longer be able to rely to the same extent on the

availability of highly skilled talent from EU countries, there are challenges

and opportunities to business schools and universities. In particular, the

productivity of UK companies must improve dramatically if they are to

compete effectively in global markets: UK productivity continues to lag

behind the rest of the G7 by 18%. Both factors point to an urgent need to

upskill the UK workforce and highlight the critical role where higher

education can add the most value.

III. Research consistently shows that leadership and management skills are

critical to boosting productivity. Universities need to embed them in more

courses. It’s a win-win: boosting the employability of students by providing

employers with skilled leaders who can drive productivity gains.

IV. This will also mean investing in the new degree apprenticeship

programmes. The Chartered Manager Degree Apprenticeship is already

being rolled out by over 30 universities, and with most of the rest actively

considering delivery. Nearly 900 apprentices have embarked on

programmes with numbers predicted by Universities UK to rise to 3,000

VAL0075

  

within the first couple of years. Demand from employers is growing all the

time and will only escalate as the Levy beds in and comes to be seen as

what it really is: a skills investment fund.

V. As a sector, there is still much to do to raise awareness of degree

apprenticeships, not only among employers but among young people.

Research by CMI and the EY Foundation in 2016 found that young people

are almost twice as likely to receive information about going to university

compared to taking apprenticeships – 84% compared with 48%.

VI. From the perspective of Government, the new Institute for Apprenticeships

is currently perceived as blocking the ability of the HE sector to offer the

added value clearly sought by employers. Whilst the new Senior Leaders

Master’s Degree Apprenticeship Standard has been fully approved since July

2017, the new Route Panel process is blocking decision-making on the

funding band for this apprenticeship. This is currently threatening to disrupt

significant numbers of planned starts, circa 200 plus, in January 2018. This

delay has the potential to jeopardise employer confidence in these higher

level apprenticeships, undermines the hopes and aspirations of many

apprentices already selected by their employer, and creates significant

costs and resourcing issues for the universities.

VII. There’s a huge need for more employable graduates and apprentices to

enter the workplace with the practical skills, professional ethics and

experience to make an instant impact on their organisations. Employers,

higher education and professional bodies are working together to create

innovative solutions to these challenges. Student input into these

innovative solutions is also important and CMI has been very impressed by

the calibre and contributions of our student ambassadors – whether

pursuing business studies or apprenticeships.

VIII. CMI believes that by working in partnership, we can better shape and

showcase how higher education offers real value for money and can address

a twin agenda of both improving productivity and social mobility outcomes.

VAL0075

  

Evidence Submission

1. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

1.1 CMI measures the improvement in skills, work-readiness and personal

development made by students during their time spent in higher education

using a variety of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.

In addition to conducting surveys of students and academics, we also

analyse statistical data collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency

in the Key Information Set (KIS), with a focus on the National Student

Survey and the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education.

1.2 The objective of the analysis is to compare CMI accredited and non-

accredited courses in Business and Management on a ‘before’ and ‘after’

basis, as well as year-on-year. It is important to note that there is a time

lag between the moment student feedback and employment information

are collected and the time the KIS is published. Also, not all courses have

been accredited from the same date. We have identified all eligible courses

and set the baselines for future benchmarking.

1.3 We will track our performance using this model and share the first results

as data becomes available. Commenting on this model of evaluation, Niall

Hayes, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Teaching, Lancaster University

Management School said: “The collaboration with CMI that has started in

earnest this year is one of the most valuable professional development

projects at Lancaster. CMI’s vision for the management profession

resonates entirely with the academic research and the teaching experience

at Lancaster.”

VAL0075

  

1.4 Table of initial survey results on added value to HE partners

2. Quality and effectiveness of teaching

2.1 A key component in ensure proper value for money in higher education is a

high level of quality and effectiveness in teaching. In partnering with higher

educational institutions, CMI supports university staff in helping managers

and leaders develop the skills to drive organisation forward and deliver

results. Our programme of curriculum enrichment allows for: accreditation

of courses to broaden appeal and widen recognition; embedding of

Chartered Manager into courses differentiating the offering by adding

tangible value; and offering CMI membership support for students, which

enhances their employability by providing access to invaluable content,

influential local and national networks and online mentoring.

2.2 Curriculum enrichment allows students and teachers to move beyond the

theoretical and into the practical. For faculty, curriculum enrichment allows

What Higher Education Providers Say

CMI Partner Survey, July 2017

77% say their CMI partnership has a positive impact on students’ learning experience

84% of HE partners say that CMI has a high level of impact on student employability

47% of HE partners say that partnership has had a high level of impact on student

recruitment

89% of HE partners were satisfied or very satisfied with the online resources provided

by CMI

What Students Say

CMI Student Satisfaction Survey, August 2017

80.6% say that a CMI is a great partner for students and for their future career

82.3% believe their CMI qualification will make them more employable

60% of those aware say CMI accreditation influenced their university choice

VAL0075

  

for increased support in student engagement and a better learning

experience, as well as the facilitation of links with industry leaders. For

students, curriculum enrichment provides for a better understanding how

the theory is applied in the workplace through embedded learning, and a

connection to those who have a wealth of experience and practical

knowledge.

2.3 This changes the nature of learning and moves it from traditional education

to one in which students are able to put the theory into practice. This

practice is invaluable, as 75% of students and applicants would like to see

their institution invest more in employability and work-readiness

programmes1 and 75% of employers say graduates should seek

professional qualifications, alongside their academic achievements, as

evidence of practical/applied skills.2 Including practical training and

qualifications undoubtedly increases the value for money students are

getting in higher education.

2.4 CMI supports the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), and the positive

impact it provides to teaching outcomes. This programme is an important

step in providing better value for money in higher education. CMI believes

in advancing the TEF through partnerships between professional bodies and

higher educational institutions to increase the benefits further. Our surveys

have found that satisfaction with these partnerships is high, and they have

been incredibly beneficial for both faculty and student.

2.5 CMI contributes to a range of criteria highlighted in the TEF framework,

including: the recognition of courses by professional bodies; learning

environment supported by professional practice, student involvement in

enterprise and entrepreneurship, career enhancement for mature students,

and enhanced use of digital content. For students, CMI provides for the

achievement of professional goals, acquiring skills valued by employers,

and engagement with the latest developments in professional practice.

                                                            1 University Partnership Programme, “Work hard, play hard: lifestyle and employability at university”, Page 12. 2 CMI, “21st Century Leaders”, Page 8, June 2014.  

VAL0075

  

2.6 In terms of teaching outcomes, 77% of our HE partners say their CMI

partnership has a positive impact on students’ learning experience.3 84%

of HE partners say that CMI has a high level of impact on student

employability.4 Students have found the partnership to be positive, as

82.3% believe their CMI qualification will make them more employable and

80.6% say that a CMI is a great partner for students and for their future

career.5

2.7 Positive statistics from partners and students show the importance of the

TEF, and how they can improve the educational experience for student and

faculty alike. They allow for a holistic approach to enhancing students’

professional and personal development, which will not only increase the

value for money in higher education, but ensure students are gaining

important skills for life outside of the educational sphere.

3. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

3.1 The new degree apprenticeships offer a true gateway to the professions and

a route into higher education that is debt free. So they are a genuine option

for those families who are just about managing. More broadly, there is

emerging evidence that the involvement of higher education institutions is

having a strong impact on the perception of quality and overall branding of

degree apprenticeships.

3.2 Early indications are that the new degree apprenticeships offer significant

benefits in term of widening participation and social mobility. New CMI data

from the end of September 2017 has been analysed looking at the 877

Chartered Manager Degree Apprentices currently on programmes, for which

initial demographic data is available for 399 apprentices. This analysis

shows that 46% of the new degree apprentices are under the age of 30,

                                                            3 CMI, HE Partner Satisfaction Survey, July 2017. 4 CMI, HE Partner Satisfaction Survey, July 2017. 5 CMI Student Satisfaction Survey, August 2017.  

VAL0075

  

and 41% of apprentices come from the most socio-economically challenged

regions. In terms of gender balance, 51% are female, and 49% male.

3.3 Julia Clarke, Pro Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculty of Business and

Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, has recognises the importance

of social mobility in degree apprenticeships. “Let’s design in social mobility

from the start,” she said when speaking at a CMI HE Conference in February

2017. “We’ve done a great deal as a sector in terms of widening

participation, but we’ve always been playing catch-up because we’re

working in a deficit model.” Degree apprenticeships are a way to address

the social capital gaps that exist between students from different

backgrounds. “When our degree apprentices apply, they’re not just applying

to university. They’re applying for a job at the same time,” she said. “We

have to support them so that it’s a fair competition for all who can benefit

from doing a degree apprenticeship.”

3.4 “Apprenticeships are a new product and, for most universities, a brand new

way of working,” observed Nicola Turner, Head of Skills at the Higher

Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). With this in mind, HEFCE

has been focused on raising awareness of degree apprenticeships, lowering

barriers to entry for education providers, simplifying the rules around

funding and quality, developing policy and trying to influence the remit of

the Institute for Apprenticeships.

3.5 Already some interesting models are being developed to deliver

apprenticeships. “We’re seeing partnerships between further education

colleges and higher education institutions,” Nicola Turner said. “They tend

to be grouped geographically or regionally around a local enterprise

partnership priority area. Examples would be London South Bank University

leading a partnership in London and Sheffield Hallam leading a partnership

in the north.” Plus, she added, some big public-sector degree

apprenticeships are emerging, including a policing apprenticeship led by the

University of Cumbria.

VAL0075

  

3.6 Pearson Business School has run what is now a Chartered Manager Degree

Apprenticeship (CMDA) scheme with the BBC for three years. The degree is

a BA (Hons) in Business Management, which is validated by the University

of Kent. It was launched under the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ)

framework before moving over to CMDA in 2016. Sharon Leonard, the

BBC’s Business Management Higher Apprenticeship Programme Manager,

says that the media group decided to invest in degree apprenticeships as a

way “to develop broader and more varied career paths as long-term

solutions to ensuring we have a strong field of commercial and business

talent in-house”.

3.7 She adds: “We want to support diversity in our business functions,

reflecting the BBC’s organisational commitment to increasing diversity and

recruiting the brightest talent from the broadest range of backgrounds. We

also want to promote the widest possible opportunities available in the BBC

for interesting and challenging careers.” Apprentices also have the

opportunity to develop their presentation skills by speaking at outreach

events where they encourage the next generation to sign up to degree

apprenticeships.

3.8 In order to leverage the full value of these new degree apprenticeship

routes, there is significant work to do in terms of improving the

understanding of career guidance professionals and parents about the

opportunities provided by apprenticeships. CMI’s recent survey with

Populus of 1,000 UK parents of 11-18-year-old children found that just 20%

were aware of degree apprenticeships.6 However, more affluent parents

were 2.5 times more likely than those from lower socio-economic groups to

know about degree apprenticeship.

3.9 Apprenticeships have historically been viewed with a certain amount of

snobbery, yet it is now middle-class parents who are more likely to weigh

up the cost of university and the quality of opportunities offered by

apprenticeships. With this knowledge, we face a serious challenge not only

                                                            6 Petra Wilton, “If degree apprenticeships are to widen access, we need to raise awareness”, The Guardian, 18 August 2017.

VAL0075

  

to raise awareness around apprenticeships in general, but to reach those

less privileged families likely to benefit most from the “earn while you learn”

approach and to be able to gain a degree with no student debt.

3.10 We are already beginning to see the positive impact apprenticeships are

having on the lives of disadvantaged young people and how a well-

developed apprenticeship programme can help their career progression.

3.11 Christopher Achiampong is currently on the Chartered Manager Degree

Apprenticeship (CMDA) with IBM. He grew up in a single-parent family in

Newham, an area with “high poverty levels and deprivation”. The CMDA

provided an opportunity to gain paid experience with three different

companies over three years, as well as get a university degree from Pearson

College London and Chartered Manager status. Following his success on

this programme, he now campaigns for social mobility and diversity in the

workplace, and is part of IBM’s Multicultural Network, sharing his

apprenticeship experiences at events. Chris Achiampong is chair of the EY

Youth Panel, a charity that supports disadvantaged young people into work.

He’s also a governor at his former primary school. “The degree

apprenticeship has given me the confidence and analytical thinking I need

to succeed in the world of business,” he says.

3.12 In addition, to being an effective pathway for supporting young people from

disadvantaged backgrounds into higher-level professional careers, the

degree apprenticeships are also being used by employers to support the

upskilling of those already in the workplace. Supporting all-age social

mobility is another key area where the higher education sector offers value

added. Individual case studies already include mother-returners and those

returning from periods of economic inactivity due to health reasons.

Contact

CMI would welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can support this work

further. We would welcome the opportunity to present our research and insights

VAL0075

  

with the committee, including our findings on diversity, the gender pay gap,

student satisfaction and the new role of our degree apprenticeships.

VAL0075

    

VAL0025

Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)

1.1 Background

1.2 The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people development. The

not-for-profit organisation champions better work and working lives and

has been setting the benchmark for excellence in people and organisation

development for more than 100 years. It has over 140,000 members

across the world, provides thought leadership through independent

research on the world of work, and offers professional training and

accreditation for those working in HR and learning and development.

1.3 Our membership base is wide, with 60% of our members working in

private sector services and manufacturing, 33% working in the public

sector and 7% in the not-for-profit sector. In addition, 76% of the FTSE

100 companies have CIPD members at director level.

1.4 Public policy at the CIPD draws on our extensive research and thought

leadership, practical advice and guidance, along with the experience and

expertise of our diverse membership, to inform and shape debate,

government policy and legislation for the benefit of employees and

employers, to improve best practice in the workplace, to promote high

standards of work and to represent the interests of our members at the

highest level.

VAL0025

2.1 General comments

2.2 The CIPD welcomes this inquiry into value for money in higher education. Previous CIPD research has examined graduate outcomes in the labour market highlighting widespread graduate over-qualification. This issue, coupled with high fees and rising graduate debt in England, makes it is clear that there needs to be a rethink about the value of higher education, for both individuals and the public purse.

2.3 Students in England are leaving university in considerable debt because of

high fees and reliance on maintenance loans. The IFS has recently estimated that the average student will graduate with an estimated £50,000 debt – and students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, with more loans available to them, will build up debts of £57,000.1 It is estimated that under current arrangements the majority (77%) of graduates will never earn enough to fully repay their debts, however, the recent announcement on the raising of the repayment threshold will likely increase this proportion.

2.4 Successive government have focused on rapidly expanded the higher

education sector. Yet previous CIPD research has highlighted the growing challenge of graduate over-qualification, which suggests that the growth in graduate-level jobs has not kept pace with this expansion. In 2016 we published Alternative Pathways into the Labour Market which examined 29 occupations, which together make up just under a third of total employment.2 The research found that although the proportion of individuals holding degrees in these jobs had increased rapidly since over the last three decades the skill requirements of these job had not appreciably changed. For example, 41% of new recruits in property, housing and estate management are graduates, compared with 3.6% in 1979, and 35% of new bank and post office clerks are now graduates, compared with 1979 when just 3.5% of bank and post office clerks held degrees.

1 Institute for Fiscal Studies. (2017) Higher education funding in England: past present and options for the future. IFS Briefing Note BN211. London: IFS. Available at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN211.pdf [Accessed 20/10/17]. 2 CIPD. (2016) Alternative pathways into the labour market. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/alternative-labour-market-pathways [Accessed 20/10/17].

VAL0025

2.5 Our previous research Over-qualification and skills mismatch in the graduate labour market has highlighted a high level of over-qualification in the UK by international standards, with nearly six-in-ten (58.8%) graduates in non-graduate jobs.3 Over-qualification has a negative effect on measures of employee well-being, and is associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and career satisfaction. Alongside this there are implications for UK productivity – evidence from the OCED suggests that the UK has a higher skills mismatch than average and that reducing mismatch to “best practice” level would improve our productivity by about 5%.4

2.6 Given this background – alongside low levels of student satisfaction with

value for money noted already by the inquiry – it is right that The Education Committee has focused on graduate outcomes and the use of destination data. CIPD believes there should be greater focus in the Teaching Excellence Framework on how well education institutions are equipping students with not just academic knowledge but also with the transferable work-readiness skills that businesses need.

2.7 The full scope of this inquiry lies beyond the CIPD interest and expertise

however there are two questions where the institute does have a view. Our response: Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

3.1 The CIPD has previously commented about the metrics related to graduate outcomes in the Teaching Excellence Framework. The current definition in the TEF of ‘highly skilled’ employment destination includes not just ‘managerial and senior official occupations’ and ‘professional occupations’, but also ‘associate professional and technical occupations’, many of which - such as fitness instructor, estate agent, police constable and dispensing optician – are carried out by people without degrees, and are occupations which the ONS states do not require a degree to do. This definition is extremely misleading – on the government’s measure 77% of recent graduates achieve a ‘graduate level’ job six months after

3CIPD. (2015) Over-qualification and skills mismatch in the graduate labour market. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/skills/graduate-labour-market-report [Accessed 20/10/17]. 4 OECD. (2015) The future of productivity. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/OECD-2015-The-future-of-productivity-book.pdf [Accessed 20/10/17]. 

VAL0025

graduation, however, if ‘associate professional and technical occupations are removed this figure falls to just over half. The CIPD believes there needs to be a review of the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey including which occupations are classified as ‘graduate level’.

3.2 Unpublished CIPD research on the latest DLHE data shows wide variation

in employment and salary outcomes for students 6 months after graduation by subject area and institution (CIPD would be happy to share this with the inquiry once it is published). The TEF should include a detailed breakdown of this data to help inform learner choice.

3.3 The Government has previously suggested that universities and colleges

in England that have a TEF award will be able to increase their tuition fees in line with inflation. The CIPD however, believes that there needs to be a more radical shake up given that most institutions are charging the top rate, and that the Government should explore linking tuition fees to graduate employment and salary outcomes.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

4.1 The CIPD has previously argued that there is a need to embed the teaching of employability skills as an integrated part of the TEF. The CIPD supports the recommendations in the HEPI paper Employability: degrees of value for the need for a new framework of employability “embracing knowledge, skills and social capital”.5 The quality and effectiveness of teaching should not just be about supporting the development of academic knowledge, but also understanding how the knowledge and skills might be applicable in the workplace.

4.2 For a curriculum to be able to support the development of these skills there needs to be common language understood by students, employers and universities. Students should be encouraged early on to think about future career goals through high quality information advice and guidance and be provided with opportunities – such as, work placements, internships, volunteering and employer visits – to develop the core transferable skills they need to realise their ambitions.

4.3 As it currently stands activities related to improving graduate

employability are only suggested as potential supplementary evidence that the provider may consider including as part of its submission to the

5 HEPI. (2015) Employability: degrees of value, occasional paper 12, HEPI, Oxford. Available at: http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2015/12/10/employability-degrees-value/ [Accessed 20/10/17].

VAL0025

TEF. There is potential to widen the scope of the questions in the National Student Survey to develop better metrics on students’ perceptions on opportunities to build employability skills, as well as satisfaction with, and access to, high quality careers advice and guidance.

October 2017

VAL0035  

 

WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY COVENTRY

UNIVERSITY 1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 This submission is from Coventry University Group. We are a leading

'modern university', with a robust academic presence regionally, nationally and across the world. Coventry University has predominantly a young, full‐time student body studying at its Coventry, Scarborough and London campuses. This provision in our subsidiary institutions, notably Coventry University College Ltd, has enabled us to increase part-time participation and non-traditional participation.

1.2 In this submission we set out approaches, based on our experience, to delivering value for money in higher education. We suggest that areas of focus for policy makers should include: Encourage the development of flexible approaches in addition to

traditional 3 year full-time degrees tailored to students with different needs.

A relentless focus on excellent teaching with fair accountability measures which also recognise the importance of wider elements of student support e.g. writing support, data analytics etc.

The development of a Knowledge Exchange Framework which focuses on Business collaboration that generates significant return on investment.

Measures to address financial hardship among students while they are studying.

1.3 There are several important aspects to value for money in higher education.

Coventry recognises that students themselves are individually committing significant money to funding their higher education. In return, they are right to expect excellent teaching, first-class resources and student support.

1.4 Coventry University is also an anchor institution and takes seriously its role in the local and regional community. We are committed to driving growth through building links with business and supporting the regeneration of the city. In addition, the University undertakes research with impact.

1.5 The University is proud that 49% of its students are BME and that students from the lowest indices of deprivation are more strongly represented in the student population compared to the sector. Through its corporate plan, the University is committed to eliminating disparity of attainment by ethnicity

VAL0035  

 

by 2021. We therefore have considerable expertise and insight to share with the Committee.

1.6 Coventry University has been an active partner in forming new partnerships

to support the devolution and economic growth agenda, this includes the formation of the West Midlands Combined Universities and Midlands Enterprise Universities. Our role as “anchor institution” for multiple campus locations (Coventry, London, and Scarborough) enables us to generate positive community impacts, including local support for graduates of the institution.

1.7 The University recently commissioned independent economists to analyse

Coventry University’s contribution to the local economy. The findings are being written-up, but it is clear that Coventry’s business engagement and knowledge engagement deliver significant returns.

1.8 While we await further details, Coventry University sees merit in the

Minister’s recent proposal to develop a Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). Increased transparency around university and business collaboration will not only highlight the considerable work already taking place in this area, but also reveal gaps and areas for improvement. It is, however, important that such a framework considers the full breadth of knowledge exchange activity – beyond commercialisation and spin-outs.

1.9 The issue of student debt is overplayed by critics of the current fee system, but there is undoubtedly an issue with financial hardship among some students. Coventry supports calls, including those from Universities UK and the National Union of Students, for maintenance grants to be re-introduced for students from less well-off backgrounds. The recent move to raise the student loan repayment threshold will not help students while they are at university. The announcement by the Prime Minister that there will be a review of the system, presents an opportunity to consider whether the findings of the Diamond Review in Wales may be relevant in England.

1.10 The 2012 increase of fees to £9k has not had a negative impact on the

proportion of full-time students entering higher education, but it has triggered a greater focus on value for money. Many students do feel that they are making a financial transaction and have a right to expect high quality in provision in return. The sector must respond positively to this opportunity and sharpen its focus on what is being provided beyond traditional 3-4 year ‘academic’ programmes. The introduction of Degree Apprenticeships is welcome, but institutions also have an opportunity to be more innovative in their offer and run programmes designed with employers which prepare students for the workforce.

VAL0035  

 

1.11 More thinking is needed to support part-time students and the greater role that HEIs could play in upskilling the workforce. The removal of financial support for ELQ students has been damaging and undermines efforts to create a more competitive/productive economy.

2 Introduction 2.1 Coventry University is one of the country’s leading 'modern universities',

with over 29,000 students in the UK and a robust academic presence regionally, nationally and across the world.

2.2 In June 1992, the Further and Higher Education Act enabled the institution

(Coventry Polytechnic) to adopt the title of Coventry University, and bestowed on it the powers to award its own degrees.

2.3 Over the last five years, Coventry University has admitted an average of

96.8% of its students from state schools, and, on average, 39.7% of its students from the lowest socioeconomic groups. Coventry students’ BME composition for entrants for the last five years from 2010/11 to 2015/16 has increased from 40.6% to 49.4%.

2.4 The University received a Gold rating in the 2017 Teaching Excellence Framework and an overall satisfaction rating of 86.9% in the 2017 National Student Survey (England average: 84.1%). In the most recent Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE), 81.4% of respondents were in a positive destination 6 months after graduation.

2.5 Major developments in recent years included the University’s London Campus opening in the heart of the capital in 2010, followed in 2012 by Coventry University College, offering flexible “life-shaped learning” higher education opportunities including, most recently, Degree Apprenticeships. Additional campuses, offering similar, low-cost provision have now opened in Scarborough, and Barking and Dagenham.

3.0 Graduate outcome and the use of destination data 3.1 Coventry University believes destination data is a useful tool but does not

provide a complete picture. In a rapidly changing labour market it is difficult to define what constitutes a graduate-level job. Further, additional context is needed alongside the raw data. The Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset provides a rich source of information. For it to be more meaningful and used in a fair way as part of the TEF, regional benchmarking should be introduced. This would ensure the data is not skewed by graduates entering similar jobs (often for the same companies) but being paid different salaries depending upon where in the country they will be

VAL0035  

 

working. There is also a concern that without additional context, the LEO data risks enhancing social stereotypes because of a small group of companies linking to a small group of universities and limiting the pool from which they recruit.

3.2 There is a need to be cautious of metrics which incentivise institutions to

encourage graduates to seek higher salaries in London and leave the local region. This would undermine efforts made by universities to support the objectives set out in the industrial strategy and regional growth agenda. There is also a perverse risk of driving some institutions to lose their focus on certain professions, nursing may be one such example.

3.3 Universities (and colleges offering degree courses) must work to provide

their students with both employment-specific knowledge and skills and general “academic” skills, such as the ability to think critically and to continue learning, that apply across a range of jobs and are in high demand from employers.

3.4 At Coventry University we pursue a strategy of linking skills provision to

industry needs and have demonstrated the way in which public investment (via HEFCE’s Catalyst fund) can deliver a return on investment. Our Institute for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering, was the country’s first ‘faculty on the factory floor’ and is an example of a successful knowledge exchange project that would be of interest to the Committee. Similar approaches could, perhaps, be replicated elsewhere.

3.5 We encourage the Committee to consider the independent economic impact

study commissioned by HEFCE to review the Catalyst Fund1. The report concludes that over the ten years following the Catalyst Fund grant, every £1 of investment is estimated to have a net return of £2.91 to £4.64 of supported direct and indirect value added. Our own experience also demonstrates how such initiatives can open opportunities for students in relation to work placement and career opportunities.

                                                            1http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2017/Catalyst,Fund,economic,impact,study/cfeconimpact.pdf (October 2017)

VAL0035  

 

4.0 Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students 4.1 The recent move by OFFA to focus on student success after access to higher

education is to be welcomed. A holistic approach covering fair and even access as well as students being supported to be successful, coupled with transparency about recruitment into certain careers which may be a ‘closed shop’ and need to become more diverse, is important.

4.2 Universities must work to provide an increased range of high quality,

accessible, flexible and affordable HE opportunities. Providing high quality, cost effective, ‘life shaped’ learning opportunities for people who want to benefit from high quality courses but who have decided that the traditional student experience is not for them should be an important focus for the sector.

4.3 CU Coventry, CU Scarborough and CU London, part of the Coventry

University Group, offer academic awards, with flexible learning options and no end of year exams, with the aim of providing a high-quality learning solution, while also allowing students to fit studying around their lifestyles.

4.4 The typical fee for a normal full‐time year in 2017/18 is £7,102 for these

programmes. Wherever possible we have designed our courses around the standards for professional qualifications and in many cases embedded these into our programmes

4.5 Each location is committed to high quality, cost‐effective learning

opportunities, offering lower tuition fees to other comparable institutions helping to make higher education affordable, and retaining a simple, transparent pricing structure.

Institute for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering 

AME  is  a  large‐scale  collaboration  between  Coventry  University  and  Unipart 

Manufacturing Group. The AME building is a facility supported by HEFCE’s Catalyst Fund 

(£7.9m), located at the Unipart Powertrain Applications manufacturing site in Coventry. 

Designed as a bespoke ‘Faculty on the Factory Floor’, it is underpinned by a shared focus 

on teaching and skills, high‐quality research and the core business of developing and 

applying energy and powertrain related technologies for the automotive, aerospace, oil 

and gas,  rail and  renewables  industry  sectors. The partnership  involved  considerable 

investment from both sides. Unipart contributes £17.9 million towards the partnership 

and  a  further  £6.5 million  towards  student  scholarships  and  product  research  and 

investment.  

VAL0035  

 

4.6 The structured block timetable provides the convenience of regular hours and the possibility of fitting other commitments, such as part‐time employment and family responsibilities, around study. Courses are delivered at times that are specifically tailored to suit part‐time and mature students, including evening and weekend delivery. The availability of opportunities to study flexibly, particularly for mature students, has been recognised as a means to address disparity.

4.7 Our investment demonstrates our commitment to providing increased

flexibility and scope for mature and part‐time students to access higher education, which meets the needs of students and employers. We aim to more than double the undergraduate part‐time provision by 2021/22 across these locations and we consider this to be a challenging aim considering the current market for part‐ time study.

4.8 Our approach also deliberately blurs the boundaries of what a part-time

student and a full-time student is. Many of our more mature learners are single parents and they need to work full-time, learn full-time and run family life. They simply cannot afford 6 years to gain a degree so we focus on flexibility.

4.9 Accelerated Degrees provide an opportunity to deliver higher education in a

more flexible way suited to the requirements of individual students. We offer accelerated modes across most of our CU Coventry provision, and welcomed the recent changes enabling more flexibility in the fees and student loan system.

4.10 Universities alone cannot solve the problem of financial hardship experienced

by students. Moves to increase the support available for disadvantaged students to help them with their livings costs, would be welcome.

4.11 Universities are failing in providing value for money if they do not help

students to succeed once they leave the education environment. A greater focus is needed to improve the employability of those students who typically lack the social capital through their schooling or family background to secure an embedded advantage that some people possess because of their family circumstances. Institutions’ corporate strategies should seek to embed a range of workplace competencies relevant to the student qualification and provide a professional and career relevant focus to students throughout their studies.

4.12 Our work to ensure every student is able to succeed has been, in part,

informed by the findings of the Disparities in Student Achievement (DiSA).

VAL0035  

 

This research project, published in October 2012, was led by the University of Wolverhampton and supported by researchers at Coventry2.

4.13 Significant investment is required to provide ongoing and proactive support

to students. Data analytics provides institutions with rich insight to target additional support effectively. The University has invested in learner analytics to monitor student engagement and identify students who are at risk of leaving their course or underachieving. At Coventry we created a Student Engagement Centre to help students who are identified as at risk of falling behind. We have an established Centre for Academic Writing tasked with supporting students to develop the writing skills required to succeed in higher education, as well as tailored maths support available to students who require it.

4.14 There needs to be greater recognition of the role HEIs can play in providing opportunities to those people who did not fulfil their potential in the school system. Coventry University through CU, its educational subsidiary campuses; CU Coventry, CU Scarborough and CU London have introduced Access programmes that are designed for students who have not had the opportunity to access Higher Education via traditional routes. The courses give students the opportunity to attain skills needed to complete a degree programme. Students successful in completing the Access to HE qualification may progress internally within the University (or other universities elsewhere) to a specified set of degree programmes. The Access to HE Diplomas have the advantage in cost terms to students, since their Advanced Learner Loans are written off, once the student obtains their degree. In addition, the CU group of campuses has a full suite of Foundation Year programmes enabling students who have insufficient UCAS points to go directly onto a degree, the opportunity to ‘repair’ their A Level grades by undertaking a level programme whilst at university. This further supports the

                                                            2 See https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/hub/download/worlverhampton_2010_disa_final_report_copy_1.pdf

Student Engagement Centre  

Coventry’s Student Engagement Centre review the attendance and engagement of all 

students. The team will give students a call if they notice a reduction in their attendance 

and/or engagement. The aim of the call from us will be to discuss the reason for the 

reduction in attendance or engagement on their course. We want to ensure that they 

are getting the best experience at university by offering a guiding hand if they require 

additional support. 

VAL0035  

 

transition of students from school or college to university study within a university setting.

4.15 We recently established the Research Centre for Global Education to build on

the reputation of the Coventry University Group as a leader in the field of teaching, learning and international education development. The Centre conducts research exploring the disparity of attainment and global education. Areas of focus include the role of learner analytics in supporting student success, delivering an inclusive curriculum, understanding why disparity of attainment is so stubborn, and exploring the impact of policy, measures and rewards in encouraging widening participation and equity of attainment.

5.0 Quality and effectiveness of teaching

5.1 A philosophy of independent learning which is embedded across the HE

sector must be backed up by quality teaching. This is particularly important for the many talented students now coming into higher education with incredibly varied experiences and qualifications, who must be supported to flourish in the university environment.

5.2 The Teaching Excellence Framework is a welcome introduction. While there

are opportunities to improve it in future years, the focus on excellent teaching is important and will have a key role to play in informing student choice.

5.3 Voices of concern about the simplicity of the Teaching Excellence Framework measures don’t change the fact that a new order has been established in university rankings. Students are looking for more than historic reputation. They want to be taught by committed professionals who care about preparing them for the global workplace.

5.4 There is only merit in the development of the subject-level TEF if it responds to student demand for information and advice on making choices. We would suggest that students are more interested in course level information, rather than gross subject-level. The bureaucratic burden of the subject-level TEF will not be insignificant and we await the results of the pilots.

5.5 Linking the TEF to fee levels should be resisted as it would lead to unintended consequences and could reduce the resources available to institutions which need to focus on improving teaching quality.

6.0 Closing Comments

6.1. Coventry University is the lead institution in the collaborative HEFCE Catalyst fund project “Driver: Data Responsive Initiatives as a Vehicle for achieving Equity in Results”. The programme will run from March 2017 to February 2019 in collaboration with four HEIs and four sixth form colleges to address barriers to student success.

VAL0035  

 

6.2 Additionally we are a partner institution in the HEFCE Catalyst fund project

“Intervention for Success” led by the University of Huddersfield. The project will produce a coherent system, supported by outstanding data analytics, to identify students at risk of underachievement and offer solutions in the form of appropriate, high quality academic interventions to ensure those students continue and succeed.

6.3 As set out in this paper, Coventry University is committed to delivering

value for money and supporting all students to succeed. We hope that this submission is helpful to the Committee.

October 2017

VAL0072  

Written Evidence submitted by Destination for Education Introduction

1. Destination for Education welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into value for money in higher education.

2. International students are a vital component of the broader higher education system. This response sets out the importance of international students to the debate around value for money in higher education.

About Destination for Education

3. Destination for Education is a coalition of five pathway providers working together to ensure that Britain’s Higher Education sector can compete globally. These pathway providers include: Cambridge Education Group, INTO, Kaplan, Navitas and Study Group.

4. Pathway providers prepare international students for study at UK universities. We help international students to develop the study and language skills they need to succeed at degree level which they have not had the opportunity to attain in their local education systems. As a group, we partner with universities across the United Kingdom at 59 institutions. A full list of these institutions can be found in Appendix A.

Financial impact of international students on higher education in the UK

5. A key determinant of the level of fees charged to UK students is the amount of revenue generated by international students. Government research shows that international students’ tuition fee income is worth over £4bn to UK universities, acting as a subsidy to UK students1.

6. International students contribute 37% of total university income from fees2 despite making up around 19% of overall student numbers at UK universities.3 If international student numbers continue to fall, domestic students are likely to face upward pressure on fees.

                                                            1 Estimating the Value to the UK of Education Exports, BIS Research Paper no 46, June 2011 2 Analysis of the Points Based System, Migration Advisory Committee, December 2009, para 7.14 3 International student numbers by UK nation and English regions 2014-15, UKCISA Higher Education Statistics

VAL0072  

7. International students play a key role in promoting the future sustainability of UK universities. STEM subjects are an example of higher-cost disciplines that have a large representation of international students. For example, 51% of students studying computer science at Russell Group universities are international students4.The fees accumulated from the high proportion of international students helps to sustain courses that would otherwise rely on fluctuating domestic demand (see Appendix C). In the case of STEM courses, sustainability is important given the strategic value of these degrees for the UK. Moreover, it allows universities to maintain access to these courses for domestic students5 and thus increasing the potential opportunities available both during and after university.

Academic impact of international students on higher education in the UK

8. A key factor in students’ judgement of the value for money of higher education in the UK is the quality of teaching6 they receive. International students play an important part in the quality of teaching and research that students can gain access to during their education.

A report released by The Russell Group states the importance of the contributions of foreign researchers and PhD students to the strength of the UK’s research base7.

The output and expertise provided by foreign researchers are a significant asset to students across the board and enhances access to quality resources.

By developing strategic areas of research, universities have a platform to recruit highly skilled research students8.

9. International students and alumni can play an important part in determining

the opportunities that universities are able to provide to aid the academic experience of its students. Networks of international alumni provides avenues for ‘future international partnerships for teaching, research and student and staff exchange’9, which are likely to increase the quality and diversity of the learning experience10.

I. As one of the leading destinations for international students, the UK currently has a strong network of alumni across the globe. As of 2015,

                                                            4 The Value of International Students at Russell Group Universities, June 2017, Para 2. 5 The Value of International Students at Russell Group Universities, June 2017, Para 3 6 Education, Consumer Rights and Maintaining Trust: What Students Want From Their University, 2017, Universities UK, Section 2.1 7 The Value of International Students at Russell Group Universities, June 2017, Para 2. 8 The Wider Benefits of International Higher Education in the UK, BIS Research Paper no 128, September 2013, Section 2.6 9 The Wider Benefits of International Higher Education in the UK, BIS Research Paper no 128, September 2013, Section 2.6 10 The Rationale for Sponsoring Students to Undertake International Study: An Assessment of National Student Mobility Scholarship Programmes, The British Council, 2014, Section 3.3

VAL0072  

25% of the world’s leaders had received education in the UK11, reflecting the vital role education can play.

Social & Cultural impact of international students on higher education in the UK

10.International students make an important social and cultural contribution by enhancing domestic students’ learning experiences and adding to the vibrancy of our higher education institutions. International students who study in Britain also leave with an appreciation of our culture, institutions and language. This cultural exchange that occurs is impactful on student perceptions of value for money, as students think beyond just their academic experience by evaluating factors that enhance their social life, independence and range of experiences12.

11.International students are major contributors to the ‘internationalisation’ agendas of universities, enabling opportunities for domestic students to develop a ‘global outlook’ at home, within the classroom and in social settings13. This is particularly beneficial for students unable to study abroad.

I. Although harder to quantify, diverse settings in higher education institutions allows students to develop ‘soft’ skills that are valuable in personal and professional settings.

12.Cross-cultural exposure is an increasingly common expectation of university

students, especially as they prepare for careers with an international scope14. The benefits of a multi-cultural learning environment are clear upon entering the work place as it allows graduates to contribute as global citizens with international networks15. This statement is supported by the results of a survey commissioned by HEPI/HEA in 2015, which indicates that over three-quarters of respondents believe that studying alongside people from other countries is ‘useful preparation for working in a global environment’16

                                                            11 Now that’s what we call soft power: 55 world leaders educated in the UK, October 2015, HEPI 12 Education, Consumer Rights and Maintaining Trust: What Students Want From Their University, 2017, Universities UK, Section 2.1 13 The Wider Benefits of International Higher Education in the UK, BIS Research Paper no 128, September 2013, Section 2.6.2 14 The Shape of Things to Come: Higher Education Global Trends and Emerging Opportunities to 2020, British Council, 2012, Section 1 pg. 10. 15 The Wider Benefits of International Higher Education in the UK, BIS Research Paper no 128, September 2013, Section 2.6.2 16 Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA) survey 2015 

VAL0072  

13.A Youth Sight survey, commissioned by HEPI and Kaplan, researched higher education applicants’ views towards international students. The results of this survey can be found in Appendix D.

14.There is a clear indication of the view that international students can enrich their academic and cultural experience.

15.Public attitudes towards international students and migration have been extensively researched by Universities UK. The report, produced in 2014, highlights the public’s recognition of the benefits of international students for the UK university system. It states that 61% of the public agree that universities depend on the higher fees of international students to invest in high quality teaching and facilities for all students17. This complements research presented in the Universities UK report (2017), which indicates that good facilities are a strong driver of student perceptions of value for money18.

The Global Picture

16.While the UK’s competitors have each taken steps to expand opportunities

for international students, the UK’s lack of movement in this area has been at a cost to our international competitiveness. The UK’s position as a global leader at exporting Higher Education is under threat from international competitors.

17.International student numbers in the UK have fallen 6% since their 2010 peak despite the global market growing 7% annually. ExEdUK and EY estimate the UK’s falling status as a higher-education provider has come at a cumulative cost of £9bn to GDP19 over the last 6 years. Other countries, meanwhile, which offer English-speaking courses, have experienced significant growth:

Conclusion

18.Increasing the UK’s global share of international students will deliver revenue for British universities which has implications on fees for domestic students as well as other university spending – a key determinant of value for money. It is through cross-subsidisation that domestic students can gain access to specific, high-cost courses.

                                                            17 International Students and the UK Immigration Debate, Universities UK, August 2014, Section 2 18 Education, Consumer Rights and Maintaining Trust: What Students Want From Their University, 2017, Universities UK, Section 2.1 19 Supporting International Education in the UK, ExEdUK, June 2016, p.21

VAL0072  

19.Enriching the academic experience of students requires an investment in high quality teachers and researchers. The vital contributions of international researchers, PhD students and international alumni allow for a range of academic resources to enhance the student academic experience.

20.The numerous social and cultural benefits that international students bring are harder to measure but enrich the developmental experiences of domestic students and shape their perceptions of the value obtained from their higher education.

21.The Government should therefore undertake measures to increase the uptake of international students in the UK as a matter of urgency.

APPENDIX A STUDY GROUP’S UNIVERSITY PARTNERS:

Durham University Coventry University London University of Huddersfield Keele University Kingston University, London Lancaster University Leeds International Study Centre Liverpool John Moores University Royal Holloway, University of London The University of Sheffield University of Leicester University of Lincoln University of Strathclyde University of Surrey University of Sussex

KAPLAN’S UNIVERSITY PARTNERS:

Bournemouth University Nottingham Trent University The University of Nottingham University of Brighton University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of the West of England, Bristol University of York

INTO’S UNIVERSITY PARTNERS:

University of East Anglia University of Exeter

VAL0072  

Newcastle University The University of Manchester Glasgow Caledonian University Queen’s University Belfast City University Manchester Metropolitan University University of Gloucestershire University of Stirling

CAMBRIDGE EDUCATION GROUP’S UNIVERSITY PARTNERS:

Birkbeck University Queen Mary University London South Bank University Goldsmiths University Royal Holloway The Courtauld University of Central Lancashire Royal Veterinary College University of Hull Falmouth University University of Reading Coventry University University of Sunderland Newbury College University of Southampton University of Arts London

NAVITAS’ UNIVERSITY PARTNERS:

University of Portsmouth Edinburgh Napier University University of Hertfordshire Brunel University London Robert Gordon University Aberdeen Swansea University Anglia Ruskin University Birmingham City University Plymouth University University of Northampton

APPENDIX B

Region Total number of employees of the

members of Destination for

Education

VAL0072  

Greater London

665

East of England

324

North West

314

North East 215 South East 1187 South West

249

East Midlands

154

West Midlands

100

Yorkshire and Humber

269

Scotland 194 Wales 11 Northern Ireland

89

Total 3771

APPENDIX C

Source: The Value of International Students at Russell Group Universities, The Russell Group, June 2017

47% 49%57% 63% 65%

53% 51%43% 37% 35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Engineering &Technology

Students

Computer ScienceStudents

Law Students Social StudiesStudents

MathematicsStudents

Proportion of overseas students in key STEM disciplines at Russell Group Universities

Home Students Overseas Students

VAL0072  

APPENDIX D

Source: What do prospective students think about international students? HEPI Report 74, March 2015 Sample: 500 interviews with applicants that are representative of the UK in terms of gender, age and school type.

46%39%

13%

2% 0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agreenor Disagree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that studying alongside students from other countrieswhen you reach university will be useful preparation for working in a global environment

VAL0012

  

Written evidence submitted by Dr. Graeme Atherton, Director, National Education Opportunities Network

(NEON) and Head Access HE

Giving students from under-represented backgrounds more than HE lite: What can we learn from other countries?

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Students from under-represented groups entering HE are not getting the same value from HE as their peers in terms of HE outcomes and experience. They are receiving a form of ‘HE lite’.

1.2 They are less likely to reach their potential whilst in HE, enter graduate

employment, earn less and whilst in HE benefit from opportunities such as studying abroad.

1.3 Present approaches to supporting better outcomes and experience mainly

focus on all students and are not targeted at those from under-represented groups.

1.4 There is growing evidence, particularly international evidence, which

suggests that more targeted initiatives are required if under-represented groups are to get better value from HE.

1.5 As HE becomes more diverse in terms of entrant profile, with rise of degree

apprenticeships for example, it is crucial that HE providers adopt more targeted approaches to enable all students to get the maximum value from higher education.

2. Background

2.1 Dr. Graeme Atherton founded and now leads both AccessHE the largest regional network in England of HEIs working to extend access and success in HE for those from under-represented groups with 27 HE provider members (www.accesshe.ac.uk) and the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) which is the professional organisation for access to HE in the UK with over 100 organisations as members including over 60 HE providers (www.educationopportunities.co.uk). He holds Visiting Professorships at London Metropolitan University, and Sunway University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He is a member of the European Access Network (EAN) Board and has produced over 120 conference papers, and publications. This submission draws from my UK and global evidence,

VAL0012

  

practice and experience but is given in a personal capacity and does not represent the views of AccessHE or NEON.

3. Under-represented groups and HE lite?

3.1 It can be argued that those from under-represented groups entering HE are not obtaining the same ‘value’ from HE as their peers. They are in the main receiving a form of ‘HE lite’. Evidence on how to improve value is not recognizing the specific needs of such groups. Global evidence suggests that value could be improved by more specific, tailored approaches to supporting under-represented groups that recognize their background and identity.

3.2 The evidence shows that in terms of HE outcomes those from low HE

participation areas, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups and disabled students are significantly less likely to complete their courses, achieve an upper 2nd class degree or better or move into graduate employment immediately after HE.1 They are also less likely to enter post-graduate study.2

3.3 Graduate salaries differ significantly by social background. Work from the

Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that students from higher income families have median earnings which are around 25% more than those from lower income families.3

3.4 Evidence also shows that they are less likely to engage in opportunities

offered to HE students to enhance their HE education. The Paired Peers project followed students from different socio-economic groups through three years of HE study at 2 universities in Bristol. They found that those from lower socio-economic groups were less likely to ‘participate in extra-curricular activities, including volunteering or taking roles in the running of clubs, which are important in constructing a CV and distinguishing oneself in the competition for jobs’.4

3.5 International experience is increasingly important to students today. The

evidence shows that ‘graduates who were mobile during their degree were less likely to be unemployed (3.7% compared to 4.9%), and more likely to have earned a first class or upper second class degree (80.1% compared to 73.6%) and be in further study (15% compared to 14%). Those in work

                                                            1http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2013/201315/Higher%20education%20and%20beyond%20Outcomes%20from%20full-time%20first%20degree%20study.pdf 2 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/transition_to_higher_degree_across_the_uk_0.pdf 3 http://wonkhe.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Graduate-earnings-IFS.pdf 4 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/spais/research/paired-peers/report/  

VAL0012

  

were more likely to be in a graduate-level job (76.4% compared to 69.9%) and [on average earned] 5% more than their non-mobile peers” (UUK 2017:2). However, in 2015–16, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds were 65% more likely to participate in outward mobility than their peers from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (2.5% participation rate compared to 1.5%).5

4. Are HE providers offering enough specific support?

4.1 There is evidence of HE providers who are developing specific approaches to address the value deficit which focus on particular groups of students.

4.2 The University of Hull specifically targets its study abroad work at widening

participation students. This work includes a summer school in Denmark for students from widening participation backgrounds. It’s Careers and Employability Service has developed a number of international partnerships in countries including: India, Thailand, Kenya, Romania and Sri Lanka. These opportunities are actively promoted to students from widening participation backgrounds groups and additional funding is available to support engagement.

4.3 The University of Sussex First Generation Scholars Programme offers

coherent support for students at the pre entry phase and right through the end of their studies. This support includes work shadowing, work and research placements.

4.4 The University of Brighton has a Momentum Mentoring Scheme which

enables students from under-represented groups to be mentored throughout an academic year by an employer or university professional. Its Employability Fund provides grants for students from a disadvantaged backgrounds to provide support with costs related to their employability development such as buying clothes for a job interview, subsistence costs while on an unpaid placement or materials for a portfolio.

4.5 The University of Manchester have developed a Widening Participation

Employability Framework which aims to improve the employability outcomes of low-income students through the delivery of targeted interventions including support to ensure equality of access to work experience placements.

4.6 However, a common view across the sector and sector bodies can be

summarised by this quote from a 2010 report by the Higher Education Academy ‘Our inclusive approach does not focus on specific target groups

                                                            5 http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/widening-participation-in-uk-outward-student-mobility-a-picture-of-participation.aspx

VAL0012

  

or dimensions of diversity, but rather strives towards proactively making higher education accessible, relevant and engaging to all students.’6(May and Thomas 2010:5).

4.7 As the government is recognising the specific needs of different groups via its new inequality website for example (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/), it is of concern that the same approach is not being encouraged within HE.

4.8 This lack of awareness of the need to address the needs of specific groups

needs if the value they receive from HE is to be maximised, is underlined by research undertaken by the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) examining how universities are supporting progression of learners from widening access backgrounds into post HE destinations. This research found that only 40% of university Access Agreements included specific targets relating to the progression of learners from widening access groups into graduate employment. Less than 20% of Access Agreements specifically referenced work with learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In total HE providers in 2017-18 are due to spend £60m on supporting learners from widening access groups into productive post HE destinations yet the majority do not appear to be undertaking specific work focused on these groups.7

5. What else could be done?

5.1 Evidence from across the world suggests that while making teaching relevant and accessible for all is important, it is also possible to acknowledge the needs of specific groups and target support at them accordingly. Examples of leading practice from 3 different countries and evidence of their impact is outlined below:

South Africa8

5.2 The University of Cape Town is the oldest public university in South Africa with nearly 30,000 students.

5.3 The overall graduation rate after five years of black students in South Africa is only 3, which is less than half of their white contemporaries. The Commerce department at UCT has an Education Development Unit (EDU) which has been set up to support the progression and success of black students. The EDU recognised that the standard approach to specialised programmes had a very limited capacity to aid students to adjust to the academic environment. EDU attempts to move from a deficit model of

                                                            6 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/inclusivelearningandteaching_finalreport.pdf 7 For more details on this research please contact Dr. Graeme Atherton. 8 http://www.gaps-education.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/The_GAPS_Think_Piece_Issue_9.pdf  

VAL0012

  

academic development for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (i.e. by making up deficits the students have in language or other skills) to a model that attempts to harness students’ agency to make them active participants in their studies as well as foster a sense of belonging to a learning community. Rather than earlier models that focussed on ‘assimilating’ students into pre-defined expectations, EDU (as with EOP below) looks to capitalise on the strengths that students bring from their different backgrounds.

5.4 Students apply directly to the EDU programme (a positive choice) rather

than being ‘placed’ there. There is a focus on being proactive and reactive to student needs. On admission, students receive individual advice from EDU academic and administrative staff on curricula, financial aid, housing etc. Peer support is an integral part of the community and senior students are encouraged to take on leadership roles and to mentor junior students. Every first-year student is assigned to a senior EDU mentor (3-4 students to one mentor). There is a compulsory weekly small group (15-20 students) course in the first semester (which appears on the degree transcript) with a curriculum designed to support students with the transition to higher education. Staff work with students individually and in groups; professional counselling sessions are available according to need or demand as the year proceeds.

5.5 Students in the EDU programme attend compulsory ‘Career Discovery’

small groups focussed on career direction and the development of graduate attributes. There are also programmes in leadership training, tutor training and staff mentoring (and indeed, acting as a mentor or tutor itself develops important skills). Awards evenings and regular class meetings all give students a ‘voice’, expression and motivation. Outings and events are organised, often by students, and there is an EDU newsletter twice a year.

5.6 The EDU moved from 40 first year students in 2000 to 282 students for

2016. The graduation throughput rate increased rapidly from 40% in 2001 to approximately 78% at the end of 2015. This is far above the national average of 31% for business/ management programmes.

United States9

5.7 Berkeley University is ranked as one of the world's leading research universities and the top public university in the United States with over 40,000 students with 17% of these students ‘first generation.

5.8 The Educational Opportunity Program at Berkeley has provided first

generation, low-income, and underrepresented college students with guidance and resources for over 50 years. EOP has academic counsellors and student staff who work alongside students to support their academic

                                                            9 http://eop.berkeley.edu/ 

VAL0012

  

achievement and personal growth. EOP’s services include individualized academic counseling, comprehensive support services and an extensive campus referral network. EOP Peer Academic Counselors are current undergraduates that serve as student-to-student advisors after participating in an intensive year-round training program.

‘EOP has developed an “Aspirational Academic Counseling Approach” and specializes in delivering high-quality academic counseling to individual students. Aspirational academic counseling empowers historically marginalized students with a sense of belonging and ownership of their college experience. Built on a commitment to educational equity and justice, academic counselors practice a holistic, multicultural, and comprehensive approach individualized for each student’s unique needs. With a focus on three core areas of transition, aspirational academic counseling sees students as partners in a developmental journey towards academic, professional, and personal life goals. Building on distinct strengths honed by students prior to their arrival to the university, counselors challenge students to establish new paradigms of achievement and success for themselves and their communities.’

5.9 It is fundamental to the EOP approach that the backgrounds of the students in terms of their identity and strengths are explicitly recognized. EOP had nearly 20,000 individual student contacts in 2013-14. The 97% first year persistence rate of EOP participants (that is the % of students who proceed to year 2), compare to the national persistence rate of 70%. However, Berkeley itself has a higher persistence rate than the national average.

Ireland10 5.10 Access to higher education in Ireland is competitive based on scores in the

Irish Leaving Examination, and some programmes will have higher requirements for access than others. The Higher Education Access Route (HEAR) is a college and university scheme that offers HE places with reduced entry requirements to school leavers from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The DARE (Disability Access Route to Education) offers parallel support to students with disabilities.

5.11 Under the HEAR scheme, institutions reserve a number of places each year

for students who meet “a range of financial social and cultural indicators”. The HEAR programme is open to students from families with incomes of €45,790 or less (assuming four or fewer children in the family; higher rates apply otherwise) and who meet a specific configuration of other “disadvantage” tests, including whether the family has received means tested social or health benefits, living in an area of “concentrated disadvantage”, attending a school designated as being in a disadvantaged area and being a child of parents who are semi- or unskilled manual workers or part of the “Non-Manual Workers” group.

                                                            10 http://accesscollege.ie/hear/ 

VAL0012

  

5.12 Students who are considered HEAR-eligible, but have leaving certificate

(the leaving certificate is the end of school examination in Ireland) results below the stated minimum for entry for a particular course, may apply for these reserved places. Successful HEAR applicants receive a range of targeted social and academic support both prior to entering higher education, and when they enter higher education through the ‘Access Offices’ of the different HE providers.

5.13 HEAR students have access to advice on financial matters, and dealing with

academic or pastoral challenges to enable them to get the full ‘value’ from HE. HEAR is a holistic package of support for students under-represented in higher education that links pre-HE work and in HE work.

5.14 The evaluation of the programme in 2012 found that:

‘There is near unanimous praise by students for the work of the Access Office across institutions in higher education in Ireland. This work is variously defined as providing mentoring support for students during their transition from second to third level, providing administrative support in promoting awareness of academic processes and form filling, providing emotional support during times of personal and academic stress, and providing a mechanism for social networking among other HEAR/DARE students.’11 (Byrne et al 2013:203)

6. Summary & Recommendations

6.1 There appears to be potential value in HE providers in England prioritising the development of specific support programmes for learners from different social backgrounds that recognize the strength and value of this background.

Recommendations

6.2 Future widening access funding is used to pilot a variation of the HEAR and DEAR programme, thus ensuring that students from under-represented backgrounds have consistency of pre HE and in HE support that is targeted at their needs.

6.3 The Office for Students should make specific activities and targets to

support the post HE destinations of students from under-represented backgrounds a statutory part of Access Agreements for such Agreements to be accepted.

                                                            11 http://www.iua.ie/wp‐content/uploads/2014/02/HEAR‐DARE‐Evaluation‐Report.pdf 

VAL0012

  

6.4 All HE providers who are offering study abroad opportunities should develop and deliver specific elements of that work targeted at learners from under-represented groups. Information regarding such work should be stated in Access Agreements.

6.5 Students from specific groups should be offered, if they wish to avail

themselves of it, personal counselling support from peers based on leading global models such as that from the University of Berkeley.

6.6 HE providers delivering degree apprenticeships should make specific

support provision for these learners to ensure they are not disadvantaged in the benefits they can obtain from the higher education experience.

Dr. Graeme Atherton, If the Commission or representatives of it wished to discuss the above content further, or want further evidence pertaining to the issues raised in this paper I would be happy to assist. Please contact me on graeme.atherton@londonhigher.ac.uk.

October 2017

VAL0022

Written Evidence submitted by Dr. Mark Baimbridge from University of Bradford ‘Wage determination of university Vice Chancellors’ Executive summary This submission models the financial remuneration to vice chancellors and

principals at UK higher education institutions and thus addresses the issue of “senior management pay in universities” regarding the Education Committee's inquiry on value for money in higher education.

After describing the alternative theoretical underpinnings for the determination of pay an earnings function is estimated utilising institutional and personal characteristics.

The model suggests only a partial linkage of managerial and performance related indicators to remuneration levels.

This finding suggests substantial scope for reorientation of rewards towards managerial and performance indicators rather than reliance upon an efficiency wage for the position.

This would appear particularly appropriate given the continued disclosure of this information, together with the increased focus upon performance indicators relating to teaching and research within the UK higher education sector.

Dr. Mark Baimbridge is a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the School of Management, University of Bradford. He possesses over twenty-five years of teaching and research experience and has co-authored/co-edited over a dozen books and published over 40 articles in academic journals. One of his research themes is the analysis of labour markets that includes the exploration of the wage determinates of ‘elite’ labour market groups. His interest in this area of labour economics is because most institutions (e.g. universities) lack a clear and consistent statement of the criteria used in both setting starting salaries and providing merited increases of elite/senior employees (e.g. vice-chancellors). He was the lead author of: “Rewards to academia: the remuneration of Vice Chancellors and Principals”, Applied Economics, Vol.28, No. 6, pp. 631-639, 1996 (with C.Simpson), the first study of wage determination for UK vice chancellors.

Introduction 1. A longstanding issue of contemporary debate is the compensation structure,

determinants and the relation between pay and performance in the private sector with specific reference to top executives (Murphy, 1985; Jensen and Murphy, 1990; Gregg et al., 1993; Garen, 1994; Conyon and Leech, 1994; Conyon and Gregg, 1994; Conyon et al., 1995; Core et al., 2008; Matolcsy and Wright, 2011; Murphy, 2013).

2. In comparison the literature on compensation in the public sector, including

that university Vice Chancellors (VCs) is limited with a number of studies focus on the increases and determinants of VCs’ compensation (Baimbridge and Simpson, 1996; Essaji and Horton, 2010; Clements and Izan, 2008; Tarbert et al., 2008), while others provide evidence on the association between VCs’ compensation and some internal or external performance indicators (Cheng, 2014; Parsons and Reitenga, 2014).

3. This submission is based on the pioneering study of Baimbridge and Simpson

(1996) with respect to pay and performance within the upper echelons of the UK higher education sector that addressed a hitherto unexplored aspect of elite pay. This utilised the first ever survey undertaken by the Times Higher Education Supplement (Richards, 1995) of the remuneration of vice chancellors and principals at British universities and colleges1. This was based on salaries, benefits and pension payments was compiled from publicly available sources in the financial statements submitted for the academic year 1993-1994.

4. Two caveats, however, apply to the survey by Richards (1995). First, the data

must be treated with caution since disclosures are yet to be standardised. For instance, most institutions when referring to the emoluments of the vice chancellor listed their salary and benefits together and gave a separate figure for pension payments. Hence given the heterogeneous nature of this information, the total figure for remuneration is used in this analysis. Second, it is only from the financial year 1994-1995 that institutions will be required to include details of the pay in the accompanying notes of their financial statement, balance sheet and auditors report for employees receiving more than £50,000 per annum. Thus, this survey is based upon those institutions that opted to disclose this information a year earlier than required. Therefore, the observations in this sample are ultimately dependent upon the institution having chosen non-compulsory disclosure.

5. Until the position of professor is attained, the UK system of academic salaries

relies upon a model of fixing salaries based upon experience with progression largely dependent on time in service. Under such a system the requirement for salary equity studies are thought to be unnecessary (Snyder et al., 1994).

Rather it is the North American experience that provides the source of the literature concerning salary differentials. This arises when institutions initially determine a salary starting point and thereafter the pattern of increases reflect a combination of the job market for a speciality, the fulfilment of an institutions mission and the level of professional stature and experience. Problems arise with this system since most institutions lack a clear and consistent statement of the criteria used in both setting starting salaries and providing merited increases.

6. Moreover, as Pfeffer and Langton (1993) noted there is a theoretical dilemma

in the literature with respect to remuneration differentials. Approaches ranging from economics (Bishop, 1987), to expectancy theory (Porter and Lawler, 1968; Lawler 1973) and operant conditioning in psychology (Luthans and Kreitner, 1975) argue the positive benefits of making pay contingent on performance. Alternatively, economists such as Lazear (1989), Frank (1984), Milgrom and Roberts (1988) and Levine (1991), and psychologists such as Deutsch (1985, 1986) have noted that pay compensation or even pay equality is desirable to promote harmonious social relations in the workplace as well as co-operation, effort and commitment.

7. The objective of this submission, however, is not to examine this latter issue

and to pass judgement on whether vice chancellors are over or under paid either with respect to those in equivalent jobs or compared to other higher education staff. Rather it attempts to address the former area of the literature by analysing the determinants of their remuneration by estimating an earnings function for the sample through the examination of institutional and personal characteristics. The usual conclusion drawn is that, at the top of the institutional hierarchy, remuneration and performance are detached to the extent that is deemed appropriate from the perspective of principal-agent theory (Ross, 1973; Mirrlees, 1974 and 1976; Stiglitz, 1974 and 1975). Whereby there is imperfect information concerning either what action the agent has or should undertake. Moreover, such asymmetries are often exacerbated as the actions of an individual are not easily observable (Milgrom and Roberts, 1992).

8. This submission is divided into the following sections: the theoretical

framework for the analysis of relative pay, specification of hypothesised parameters in the estimated earnings function, discussion and interpretation of regression analysis results and concluding remarks.

Labour theory and vice chancellors 9. To examine the labour market for vice chancellors a multidimensional

methodology is adopted based on three approaches: wage theory, human capital theory and public choice theory.

10.The foundations of classical wage theory which are summarised by the

principles of net advantage or compensation and the concept of non-competing groups are intrinsic to an examination of vice chancellors pay. The wider higher education labour market consists at any one time of a series of non-competing groups, thus whilst academic staff are normally considered a homogeneous occupation, in actuality the composition is constituted by a number of differentiated groups, including that of vice chancellors. The theory of classical wages predicts that within each competing group there will be a tendency to equalise net advantages, whilst between each group there will be comparatively little mobility thus sustaining any uneven distribution of the total advantages and disadvantages of the different occupations. Thus, we would expect to see significant intertemporal differences between both the remuneration levels of vice chancellors and the rest of academic staff together with an equating of remuneration between vice chancellors.

11.To date the former proposition is supported by the limited information

concerning vice chancellors pay, whilst the latter prediction awaits the passage of time. The mean salary for the lecturer scale is £20,412 for senior lecturer/reader £29,543 with a professorial minimum of £31,999 (AUT, 1995). This compares with an average remuneration figure of £93,498 with a range extending from £138,822 to £46,000 for vice chancellors in this sample2. Moreover, if the publication of salaries reveals the relative underpayment among old universities vice chancellors compared to those in new universities, then the consequence of publishing remuneration packages may be an inflationary spiral. This would only serve to exacerbate the noted former disparity.

12.Neo-classical wage theory centred on supply and demand for labour would

appear an appropriate starting point for the analysis of remuneration levels. However, the demand for such labour is likely to be severely limited with only a small number of opportunities available in any one time period. Although the abolition of the binary divide between polytechnics and universities has extended the number of institutions competing within this labour market, such that the traditional view of the post being a job for elderly grandees rounding off a distinguished career (THES, 1995:13) is potentially no longer appropriate; the typical vice chancellor will seldom expect to occupy more than one such appointment. In a similar manner, the expected short-run supply of vice chancellors would be relatively inelastic with few candidates matching the current requirements of an academic background combined with management experience. Indeed, the presupposition has been for incumbents to remain in position until retirement resulting in the actual supply being below the potential of such labour.

13.Moreover, neo-classical theory suggests that the existing and potential pool of vice chancellors will choose their institution of employment based upon both monetary and non-monetary characteristics. The prevailing range of monetary remuneration packages revealed in the survey of Richards (1995) initially suggests that non-monetary compensation with respect to the perceived different characteristics of the position is significant. However, the latter are of an essentially qualitative nature and consequently problematical for the neo-classical approach to fully encompass. Moreover, the existence to date of imperfect information within this labour market through the non-disclosure of remuneration could also potentially operate to the advantage of the hiring institution, such that a measure of either explicit or implicit exploitation due to this information deficit is feasible. Thus, upon closer examination neo-classical wage determination appears to offer limited theoretical foundation for this analysis.

14.An alternative theoretical approach is that of human capital theory which refers

to the notion of the stock of expertise accumulated by an individual. Its value is in the form of skill enhancement, future earnings potential and raised productivity. The study of Becker (1964) formalised this area into an analysis centred upon the rate of return on investment, such that rational economic agents are hypothesised to pursue investment until the marginal rate of return equates to the opportunity cost of foregone earnings. From this basic proposition this theory has developed to encompass both a substantial theoretical and empirical sphere of influence.

15.Several of these key developments appear relevant to this study. First, with

respect to age-earnings profiles the theory predicts that the skilled and educated tend to have steeper profiles commencing from a higher intercept as these observed earnings are inclusive of returns to previous investment in both education and on-the-job experience (Mincer, 1974). Moreover, the typical peak in earnings will be later in the life-cycle for skilled and highly educated labour. Thus even within the higher education sector we would expect to see both a differential between the salaries of vice chancellors and other staff, and that their earnings will peak later. As previously indicated the lowest recorded level of remuneration for vice chancellors significantly exceeds grade-pointed academic staff.

16.A further element of this approach is the distinction between that endowment

of human capital specific to current employment and that which has a more general value over a wider set of employment opportunities. In particular institution-specific human capital describes a vice chancellor’s contribution to their current institution, the value of which would be lost and must be reproduced by costly investment when the employment is terminated. Thus it would be in the overall interest of the institution to maintain the internalisation of this aspect of human capital by offering sufficient returns. However, given

the conditions of asymmetric information within this labour market it is possible that some institutions have remunerated vice chancellors at unmerited levels when attempting to retain this institution-specific knowledge and expertise.

17.One of the key applications of human capital theory is the role of ability in

determining economic success. It is assumed that such interpersonal differences facilitate the shifting of the earnings-education relationship; such that more able persons earn more at a given level of education than the less able3. Thus in general given that vice chancellors have little or any additional education relative to other academic staff, then a higher level of ability may be hypothesised to result in a more favourable rate of return.

18.This issue of ability is also analysed by the theory of signalling (Spence, 1973 and 1974) where the difficulty for employers is to identify potential high productivity employees. Here the problem is overcome by those with higher ability participating in education which performs the role of screening out likely high-productivity workers. While our survey of vice chancellors indicates that they have evidently progressed a substantial distance through various levels of education, there still remains potentially significant differences when examining their highest academic qualifications which vary from bachelor’s degrees to that of Doctor of Science.

19.A further insight with respect to this study to be derived from human capital

theory is the analysis of non-monetary considerations. Information on earnings only offers a limited picture of total returns since employment is a combination of both productive services offered by human capital skills and the consumption of non-pecuniary aspects of the work environment. Moreover, evidence indicates that this on-the-job consumption increases with education and skill levels (Rosen, 1986). While such considerations could lead to another potential source of bias in rate of return calculations, this study examined only one quasi-homogeneous segment of the labour market. Thus, a plausible difference between vice chancellors earnings is this concept of non-monetary rewards between alternative institutions; for example, the prestigiousness of different universities.

20.Within the scope of public choice theory perhaps the nearest equivalent to the

subject of vice chancellors is the literature concerning bureaucracy or high public officials. The traditional view is that their behaviour is guided by a sense of public service reinforced by established conventions and the need for peer approval (Self, 1993). In contrast, public choice theorists suggest that they will be primarily motivated by their private interests concerning pay, status and personal convenience or ambition (Buchanan et al, 1980; Hanusch, 1983). Specifically, Tullock (1965) argued the pathology of bureaucrats was to substitute their own interests for that of their supposed function. For instance, they may seek to distort information if this is deemed to assist their career.

Downs (1967) argued that bureaucrats will seek to expand their sphere of influence so as to stabilise their immediate environment and provide more rewards for members. Indeed, one relatively recent development has been the formation of groups of universities to represent their interests both domestically (e.g. 1994 Group Universities, MillionPlus, N8 Group, GuildHE, Wallace Group, University Alliance, Russell Group) and internationally (e.g. Universitas 21, Worldwide Universities Network). Niskanen (1971) rationalised that all the possible goals of a bureaucrat are positively and monotonically related to the size of their budget. Here the bureaucracy is assumed to hold a monopoly for an unpriced public good (in this case higher education) whose output cannot be economically measured and to have a bilateral monopoly relationship with its political sponsors the Department for Education. Thus, given the difficulties of judging its efficiency the bureau chief will be able to extract a substantial surplus from their political masters to their own advantage.

21.Moreover, in a democratic system, often the strongest administrative interests

are not individual institutions, but cohesive and prestigious groups. In this scenario, formerly the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and now Universities UK. Hence, individual vice chancellors can be expected to act as strong defenders of the privileges of their administrative class. This notion of the collective defence or aggrandisement of particular administrative agencies or groups suggests that the greater degree of financial autonomy higher education institutions enjoy, the greater is the corresponding possibility for self-advancement. Therefore given the changes in the British higher education sector with the abolition of the binary divide, public choice theory indicates that the release of the new universities from the control of local education authorities might have weakened the restraints concerning rewards to their bureaucracies.

Data specification 22.The earnings of vice chancellors (VCPAY) for the academic year 1993-94 was

specified as a single-equation semi-logarithmic relationship: Ln(VCPAY) = a0 + a1UGRAD + a2PGRAD + a3STAFF + a4ASC + a5GRANT + a6FEES + a7RESCON + a8SUNFUND + a9OXBRIDGE + a10LONG + a11GREEN + a12CAT + a13NEWUNI + a14RUSSELL + a15RUSSFIVE + a16RUSSNINE + a1794GROUP + a18RATING + a19UNITS + a20RASTAFF + a21EARNINGS + a22HOUSES + a23BACH + a24MASTERS + a25MPHIL + a26PHD + a27DSC + a28MR + a29DR + a30PROF + a31CBE + a32SIR + a33SIRCBE + a34NOHONS + a35SCIENCE + a36ENGINEER + a37SOCSCI + a38TIME + a39AGE + a40AGESQ Where e is the exponential and a0 to a40 are parameters. A priori:

a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a14, a15, a16, a17, a18, a19, a20, a21, a22, a38 > 0 a39 < 0 a9, a10, a11, a12, a13, a23, a24, a25, a26, a27, a28, a29, a30, a31, a32, a33, a34, a35, a36, a37 are parameters associated with polytomous category variables such their estimated values are dependent on the eventual omitted category. 23.For this analysis the explanatory variables are divided into two categories:

institutional and personal characteristics. Following the findings of Pounder (1989) that salaries are significantly influenced by the characteristics of the institution as a whole, in the former category three general propositions are tested: an examination of the managerial aspects of the position; a series of quantitative and qualitative variables relating to the perceived status of the institution; and geographical and economic factors specific to each institution. The second category focuses upon the personal characteristics of the vice chancellors relating to education, academic background and experience to examine how these might influence overall remuneration.

24.The first series of institutional variables attempt to encapsulate alternative

measurements concerning the magnitude of the institutions expected managerial requirements. This is firstly comprised by the number of undergraduate (UGRAD) and postgraduate (PGRAD) students and teaching staff (STAFF). These are regarded as analogous to measuring both the customer base and number of employees in the context of a firm. To further examine the potential managerial complexity the number of HEFCE defined academic subject categories (ASC) for each institution is incorporated. An important aspect for the analysis of any managerial position is the respective budgetary responsibility. Thus, a series of financial indicators of institutional income sources are hypothesised to impact upon remuneration levels: the HEFCE grant (GRANT), academic fees and support grants (FEES), research grants and contracts (RESCON) and a sundry of additional funding sources (SUNFUND).

25.An important, yet elusive, concept in determining the earnings of vice

chancellors is that of the quality or prestige of the institution. Indeed the difficulty in measuring merit is reviewed by Pratt (1988) whereby contrasting forces make judgement of this relationship difficult to estimate; hence, for this model the perceived status of the institution is determined by a number of quantitative and qualitative variables. A series of hypothesised influential factors is information resulting from the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise conducted by the Universities Funding Council. Three performance indicators relative to this selectivity exercise are utilised in the study: the average weighted rating (RATING) attained by each institution4, the number of units of assessment (UNITS) and the percentage of staff submitted as research active (RASTAFF).

26.The first qualitative aspect of institutional prestigiousness is analysed through the historical roots of each institution. This is particularly pertinent in connection with the abolition of binary divide and the establishment of a unified UK higher education sector. It is intuitively plausible to assume that those institutions with the greatest perceived quality or prestige would offer the highest rewards. However, to raise institutional quality through the attainment and retention of high calibre personnel, then higher remuneration would be indicated. Thus, Williams et al. (1974) argued that salaries would be positively related to the then new Robbins universities, as they had expanded rapidly and had to offer relatively high salaries to finance their expansion. Indeed the Secretary of the Council for University Chairmen stated that, new universities have to offer larger salaries to attract vice chancellors away from places like Oxford (Scott-Clark and Burke, 1995). The system for categorisation of institutions adopted by Johnes and Taylor (1992) is employed to create five dummy variables. These relate to whether an institution is either Cambridge or Oxford (OXBRIDGE), long-established (LONG), a greenfield site university (GREEN), an ex-college of advanced technology (CAT), or if it was previously in the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council sector (NEWUNI).

27.A further series of factors relate to research university groupings. Three

qualitative variables are utilised to represent the Russell Group of seventeen universities: the whole group (RUSSELL) and the two sub-divisions within (RUSSFIVE) and (RUSSNINE). This is a self-identified group within the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals as major research institutions of old universities within the context of the former binary divide. In contrast, the 94 Group is a latterly formed second tier of twelve research institutions (94GROUP).

28.The final set of institution-specific characteristics relate to economic and

geographical factors. Regional statistics representing average gross weekly earnings (EARNINGS) are utilised to examine the relative affluence of the geographical location of each institution. This, however, is likely to be open to contrary forces resulting in the possibility of either a positive or negative impact upon remuneration levels. A positive effect could result if the level of EARNINGS was to be directly related to vice chancellors remuneration merely as a consequence of the prevailing rate for that region. Alternatively, a lower level of EARNINGS might be indicative of relative social and economic deprivation. Thus, to attract and retain a person in post, the institution could be required to offer an inversely related level of remuneration.

29.For a unitary country such as the UK, the single most significant difference in

the relative cost of living between alternative geographical locations is that of housing. Thus, data for average house prices (HOUSES) is incorporated into the model. Again the hypothesised directional influence of this variable is

uncertain for reasons similar to those outlined above in relation to average earnings.

30.As previously indicated the analysis of this labour market is unusual due to the

very specific individual knowledge of its participants. Indeed the advent of management consultancy firms to headhunt for vice chancellors indicates the perceived importance of the candidate themselves5. To facilitate an examination of the potential factors relevant to the remuneration level a number of personal characteristics are analysed.

31.The academic qualifications of the vice chancellors are represented by a series

of dummy variables indicating the highest qualification obtained. These range from bachelor degrees (BACH), taught master’s degrees (MASTERS), the higher degrees by research of Master of Philosophy (MPHIL) and Doctor of Philosophy (PHD), and finally that of Doctor of Science (DSC). It is hypothesised that earnings will be positively related to the highest qualification obtained based upon two propositions. First, from the supply-side attainment of a higher degree typically involves costs in the form of foregone earnings such that it is expected that holders of higher degrees will be compensated for their extended period of study. Second, it is assumed that a higher degree will tend to raise productivity of the individual and therefore affect salary from the demand-side.

32.For public honours the following were represented in the sample: Commander

of the British Empire (CBE), Knighthoods (SIR), both of the above (CBESIR), and those without public honours (NOHONS). Similarly, the title accorded to each vice chancellor was divided into three categories of mister (MR), doctor (DR) or professor (PROF) with remuneration hypothesised to increase with seniority. Furthermore, the background area of academic discipline for each vice chancellor was divided into science (SCIENCE), engineering (ENGINEER), or the social sciences, arts and humanities (SOCSCI). Although Botsch and Folsom (1989) argued that the effect of discipline on salaries at academic staff level is predominately dependent upon the prevailing demand and supply conditions, the analysis with respect to vice chancellors could suggest the preferred subject discipline area for this specific position.

33.The period of time of incumbency by each vice chancellor at their present

institution is measured by the variable (TIME). This is likely to be subject to conflicting forces. Human capital theory would indicate that the greater the period in position the higher the reward, as the productivity of an individual is assumed to rise with experience. However, given the abolition of the binary divide and the desired recruitment by ambitious institutions, then those with more recent appointment could expect to receive higher rewards in this more competitive higher education sector.

34.A similar set of considerations is relevant when examining the impact of the age of the vice chancellor (AGE), although the weight of both economic theory and observation suggests an expected positive relationship. Indeed the quasi-automatic progression along the formal salary scale within the lecturer and senior lecturer/readership grades intensifies the hypothesised relationship between age and salary that generally would have occurred under normal circumstances. Following previous empirical studies the term AGESQ is included in the estimated equation to test for a nonmonotonic relationship between age and remuneration. Although the possibility is usually attributed to the length of employment, for vice chancellors this relationship is hypothesised to exist with respect to age. Since this position of employment is not open as an initial career choice, the post is occupied towards the conclusion of an academic career and transfer between such positions is unusual. Moreover, the actual period in office is likely to be short in relation to the overall career lifecycle, indeed the mean time of incumbency from our sample was only seven years.

Results 35.Table 1 shows the results of multiple regression estimation of vice chancellors

remuneration, undertaken by combining both the hypothesised institutional and personal characteristics. The preferred equation employs the power function. This is estimated by OLS following a natural logarithmic transformation of the dependent variable represented by vice chancellors remuneration (VCPAY). For the dummy variables the estimated coefficients are biased estimators of the percentage change in remuneration (Halvorsen and Palmquist, 1980; Kennedy, 1981). As the regressor is in logarithmic form the regressors are thus rendered interactive. Following the Brusch and Pagan (1979) test for heteroskedasticity, the reported results show t-ratios derived from heteroskedastic-consistent standard errors. The signs of the polytomous category dummy variable coefficients will be expressed as deviations from the salary for the categories not entered into the equation and whose estimated influence is thus included within the intercept term. This technique is undertaken to avoid the dummy variable trap of perfect multicollinearity when the intercept is retained in the regression model. The omitted or base categories are BACH, SCIENCE, NEWUNI, NOHONS and MR.

Table 1 Regression estimates of vice chancellors remuneration

Dependent variable: ln(VCPAY)

Independent variables

Coefficient Absolute t-ratio

UGRAD 0.42794x10-5 1.013 PGRAD 0.10065x10-4 0.553

STAFF -0.15999x10-4 0.676 ASC 0.022223** 2.132 GRANT -0.31529x10-2 0.568 FEES 0.01116* 1.941 RESCON 0.74056x10-2* 1.667 SUNFUND 0.45294x10-3 0.11 RATING -0.13537x10-2 0.031 UNITS -0.13182x10-2 0.37 RASTAFF -0.44231x10-3 0.25 OXBRIDGE -0.17814 1.048 LONG 0.11312 1.269 GREEN 0.13606 1.533 CAT 0.16612 1.499 RUSSELL -0.076195 0.678 RUSSFIVE 0.11533 0.64 RUSSNINE -0.21031 1.338 94GROUP 0.048553 0.564 EARNINGS 0.99294x10-

3*** 2.597

HOUSES -0.44713x10-5* 1.686 MASTERS -0.02134 0.377 MPHIL -0.061256 0.643 PHD -0.078408 1.066 DSC -0.13282* 1.673 DR 0.019021 0.288 PROF 0.0869* 1.758 CBE 0.07364 1.239 SIR 0.067553 0.882 CBESIR 0.1556* 1.708 ENGINEER -0.044989 0.754 SOCSCI -0.12711*** 2.961 TIME -0.73837x10-2* 1.658 AGE -0.5535x10-2 0.153 AGESQ 0.46026x10-4 0.138 Constant 11.143*** 11.502 n 64 SE 0.21 R2 0.78 R2 adj. 0.50 F(35,28) 2.77***

Where: *** = p<0.01 ** = p<0.05 * = p<0.1

36.With respect to institutional characteristics, the managerial factors of income from fees and research grants and contracts, and the number of academic subject categories all exert their hypothesised positive influence. However, neither student nor staff numbers are significant, together with the determinants relating to the 1992 research selectivity exercise or the self-identified elite groupings of institutions. Both regional/economic indicators are found to be significant, although oppositely signed. Thus, the finding for average gross weekly earnings suggests some linkage between regional rates of pay and that for vice chancellors. Alternatively for average house prices, their signalling of relative economic deprivation indicates that an increased level of remuneration is required to attract candidates.

37.For the hypothesised personal factors, five explanatory variables are found to

be statistically significant. However, it must be remembered that to avoid the dummy variable trap the estimated coefficients for the entered dummies are expressed as deviations from the remuneration for the omitted categories. The simultaneous holding of a knighthood and a CBE results in an expected difference in earnings of 15.56 per cent over no public honours. The title of professor has the consequence of an expected remuneration differential of 8.69 per cent above that of those titled MR. Third, a background in the social science, arts or humanities leads to a fall of 12.71 per cent in relative pay in comparison to vice chancellors with a science background. With respect to the highest education qualifications held, a DSC somewhat surprisingly lowers expected remuneration by 13.28 per cent relative to those only holding a bachelor’s degree.

38.The only quantitative personal characteristic found to be significant is the

period of time the present incumbent has held the post. Contrary to its hypothesised directional impact, this factor exerts a negative influence upon remuneration levels indicating that more recent appointments have potentially benefited from the greater level of competition following abolition of the binary divide. However, the dummy variables distinguishing between institutions were insignificant relative those formerly separated by the binary divide. Thus tentatively suggesting that the remuneration committees of universities have taken advantage of their monopsony power in such a specialised sector of the academic labour market (Ransom, 1993; Baimbridge, 1995).

Conclusion 39.This submission has attempted to estimate the earnings function for a specific

segment of the higher education labourforce through the utilisation of a series of institutional and personal characteristics derived from the literature. Given the well-defined salary scales applicable to other academic and related staff the position of vice chancellors is unique within the UK higher education sector.

40.The results from the estimated equation indicate that significant levels of

remuneration differences are explained, given the previously outlined caveats concerning this particular sample. However, the individual statistical significance of relatively few hypothesised independent variables in conjunction with the relatively large t-statistic associated with the intercept term is suggestive of omitted variable bias the consequences of which are summarised in Kennedy (1992). This initially suggests that the twin set of hypothesised explanatory variables are either inadequate or inappropriate to reveal the determinants of vice chancellors earnings. Given, however, the notoriously low explanatory nature of cross-sectional analysis and the comparable findings of previous studies this possibility appears diminished. For instance, Rosen (1989: 146) stated, an investigator does very well when a third of the total variance in earnings can be explained in the analysis of variance sense by observable personal factors such as education, experience, ability measures, family background and other factors.

41.Moreover, until the recent enforced change in rules of disclosure with respect

to this information, higher education institutions were operating under conditions of uncertainty with imperfect information. Thus, it is plausible to hypothesis that a notional ‘going rate’ or efficiency wage for the position of vice chancellor has prevailed that is largely insensitive to any set of specific factors6. This occurrence could be reflected, for instance, in that many of the key managerial and performance indicators currently fail to offer an explanation for reward levels.

42.This environment may, however, be short lived given the now compulsory

requirement for disclosure. Indeed, a potential future development would be that as additional aspects of quality assessment are imposed upon academic and related staff (e.g. league tables, the Teaching Excellence Framework, Research Excellence Framework) the results of these indicators will translate directly into vice chancellors remuneration. Such a development would have its foundations in Benthamite (1962) philosophy which proposed that salaries should be set at a level suitable for attracting and retaining the appropriate talent and no more. In more formal economic terminology it would indicate that vice chancellors should only have their transfer earnings covered by a basic salary and any economic rent is dependent upon remuneration related to key performance and managerial indicators.

43.Moreover, further reform of information disclosure would seem inevitable. For

instance, it would appear appropriate to extend the scope of required disclosure to cover the constituent components of remuneration. This would include base salary, any aspects of performance related pay, payments in kind and pension contributions. Such transparency, although initially painful, would strengthen the position of universities as recipients of public money. Indeed, given the

direction of change with many aspects of public life, such a proactive policy would be of significant merit and likely to gain plaudits for the often beleaguered UK higher education sector.

References Akerlof, G.A. and Yellen, J.L. (1986) Efficiency wage models of the labour market, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Association of University Teachers (1995) Membership handbook, Association of University Teachers, London. Baimbridge, M. (1995) Academic staff salaries: equity and exploitation, Applied Economics Letters, 2 (12), 469-472. Baimbridge, M. and Simpson, C. (1996) Rewards to academia: the remuneration of Vice Chancellors and Principals, Applied Economics, 28 (6), 631-639. Becker, G. (1964) Human capital, Columbia University Press, New York. Bentham, J. (1962) The works of Jeremy Bentham (Browning, J. ed.) Book II: The rationale of reward, Russell and Russell, New York. Bishop, J. (1987) The recognition and reward of employee performance, Journal of Labour Economics, 5 (4), 36-56. Botsch, R.E and Folsom, D. (1989) Market inequity: incorporating this critical element into faculty salary plans, CUPA Journal, 40 (1), 37-47. Brusch, T. and Pagan, A. (1979) A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficient variation, Econometrica, 47,1287-1294. Buchanan, J.M., Tollison, R.D. and Tullock, G. (eds.) (1980) Towards a theory of the rent-seeking society, Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Bulow, J.I. and Summers, L.H. (1986) A theory of dual labour markets, Journal of Labour Economics, 4 (3), 370-414. Cheng, S. (2014) Executive Compensation in Public Higher Education: Does Performance Matter? Research in Higher Education, 55(6), 581-600. Clements, K.W. and Izan, Y.H. (2008) The Stairway to the Top: The Remuneration of Academic Executives, Australian Journal of Management, 33 (1), 1-30. Conyon, M.J. (1995) Directors pay in the privatised utilities, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33 (2), 159-171. Conyon, M.J. and Leech, D. (1994) Top pay, company performance and corporate governance, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 56 (3), 229-247. Conyon, M.J., Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (1995) Taking care of business - executive-compensation in the United Kingdom, Economic Journal, 105 (430), 704-714. Core, J.E., Guay, W., Larcker, D. F. (2008) The power of the pen and executive compensation, Journal of Financial Economics, 88(1), 1-25. Deutsch, M. (1985) Distributive justice: a social psychological perspective, Yale University Press, New Haven. Deutsch, M. (1986) Co-operation, conflict and justice; in Werner Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R.L. and Greenberg, J. (eds.) Justice in social relations, Plenum, New York. Downs, A. (1967) Inside bureaucracy, Little Brown, New York. Essaji, A. and Horton, S. (2010) Silent escalation: salaries of senior university administrators in Ontario, 1996–2006, Higher Education, 59(3), 303-322.

Frank, R.H. (1984) Are workers paid their marginal products?, American Economic Review, 74 (4), 549-571. Garen, J.E. (1994) Executive-compensation and principal-agent theory, Journal of Political Economy, 102 (6), 1175-1199. Gregg, P., Machin, S. and Szymanski, S. (1993) The disappearing relationship between directors pay and corporate performance, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31 (1), 1-9. Halvorsen, R. and Palmquist, R. (1980) The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations, American Economic Review, 70 (3), 474-5. Hanusch, H. (ed.) (1983) Anatomy of government deficiencies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Jensen, M.C. and Murphy, K.J. (1990) Performance pay and top-management incentives, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (2), 225-264. Johnes, J. and Taylor, J. (1992) The 1989 research selectivity exercise: a statistical analysis of differences in research rating between universities at the cost centre level, Higher Education Quarterly, 46 (1), 67-87. Kennedy, P. (1981) Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations, American Economic Review, 71 (4), 801. Kennedy, P. (1992) A guide to econometrics, Blackwell, Oxford. Lawler, E.E. (1973) Motivation in work organisations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey. Lazear, E.P. (1989) Pay equity and industrial politics, Journal of Political Economy, 97 (3), 561-580. Luthans, F. and Kreitner, R. (1975) Organisational behaviour modification, Scott Foresman, Glenview. Matolcsy, Z. and A. Wright (2011) CEO Compensation Structure and Firm Performance, Accounting and Finance, 51 (3), 745-763. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1988) An economic approach to influence activities in organisations, American Journal of Sociology, 94, 154-179. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992) Economics, organisation and management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Mincer, J. (1974) Schooling, experience and earnings, Columbia University Press, New York. Mirrlees, J. (1974) Notes on welfare economics, information and uncertainty; in Balch, M.S., McFadden, D.L. and Wu, S.Y. (eds.) Contributions to economic analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Mirrlees, J. (1976) The optimal structure of incentives and authority within an organisation, Bell Journal of Economics, 7 (1), 105-131. Murphy, K.J. (1985) Corporate performance and managerial remuneration. An empirical analysis, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7, 11-42. Murphy, K.J. (2013) Executive Compensation: Where we are, and How We Got There; in Constantinides, G.M., Harris, M. and Stulz, R.M. (eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Finance. Niskanen, W.A. (1971) Bureaucracy and representative government, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.

Parsons, L.M. and Reitenga, A. L. (2014) College and University Pay and Future Performance, Accounting Horizons, 28 (1), 125-142. Pfeffer, J. and Langton, N. (1993) The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity and working collaboratively: evidence from college and university faculty, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (3) 382-407. Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E. (1968) Managerial attitudes and performance, Irwin, Homewood. Pounder, D.G. (1989) The gender gap in salaries of educational administration professors, Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (2), 181-201. Pratt, L.R. (1988) Merit pay: Reaganomics for the faculty? Academe, 74, 14-16. Ransom, M.R. (1993) Seniority and monopsony in the academic labour market, American Economic Review, 83 (1), 221-233. Rosen, S. (1986) The theory of equalising differences; in Ashenfelter, O. and Layard, R. (eds.) Handbook of labour economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Rosen, S. (1989) Human capital; in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds.) Social economics, Macmillan, London. Ross, S. (1973) The economic theory of agency: the principals problem, American Economic Review, 63 (2), 134-139. Scott-Clark, C. and Burke, J. (1995) Campus chiefs join top earners, The Sunday Times, 19 March. Self, P. (1993) Government by the market: the politics of public choice, Macmillan, London. Shapiro, C. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1984) Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device, American Economic Review, 74 (3), 433-444. Snyder, J.K., Hyer, P.B. and McLaughlin, G.W. (1994) Faculty salary equity: issues and options, Research in Higher Education, 35 (1), 1-19. Spence, M. (1973) Job market signalling, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. Spence, M. (1974) Market signalling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Stiglitz, J.E. (1974) Incentives and risk sharing in sharecropping, Review of Economic Studies, 41, 219-255. Stiglitz, J.E. (1975) Incentives, risk and information: notes toward a theory of hierarchy, Bell Journal of Economics, 6 (2), 552-579. Tarbert, H., Tee, K.H. and Watson, R., (2008) The legitimacy of pay and performance comparisons: an analysis of UK university vice chancellors pay awards, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (4), 771-805. The Times Higher Education Supplement (1995) Poor pickings for the profs, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 24 March. Tullock, G. (1965) The politics of bureaucracy, Public Affairs Press, Washington DC. Williams, G., Blackstone, T. and Metcalf, D. (1974) The academic labour market: economic and social aspects of a profession, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, London.

Data sources Boehm, K. and Lees-Spalding, J. (1995) An applicant’s guide to UK colleges, polytechnics and universities, Macmillan, London. Central Statistical Office (1994) Regional trends, HMSO, London. Higher Education Funding Council for England (1994) Profiles on higher education institutions, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol. Nationwide Building Society (1995) House prices - 3rd quarter 1994, Nationwide Building Society, London. Richards, H. (1995) Vice chancellors pay, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 24 March. The Times Higher Education Supplement (1992) League table of excellence, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 18 December. Whos Who (1995) An annual biographical dictionary - 1995, A&C Black Publishers, London. Notes

1 From hereafter the phrase vice chancellor will encompass both vice chancellors and principals; similarly institution is adopted to describe all higher education establishments. 2 The study of Baimbridge (1995) indicated, however, that only a small proportion of existing salary differentials can be attributed to working patterns of salary-scaled UK academic staff. 3 However, the observed income-education relationship does not necessarily represent the returns available to a given person, resulting in the phenomena of ability bias. 4 The average weighted rating takes into account not only the UFC ratings given in the research selectivity exercise, but also the size of departments. Each individual rating is multiplied by the number of submitted full-time equivalent research staff in the department being assessed. All the totals for the particular institution are summed and then divided by the total number of active research staff to arrive at the average (THES, 1992). 5 A firm of international management consultants, Saxton Bampfylde, has now placed eight vice chancellors within a two year period. 6 This is the occurrence whereby it may be worth an employer paying a wage above the market clearing level to create a sense of loyalty and commitment in the employee to encourage increased productivity and stability. On the general question of efficiency wages see, Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984), Akerlof and Yellen (1986) and Bulow and Summers (1986).  

 

October 2017

VAL0027

Written evidence submitted by Dr Mark Loon Executive Summary Universities are not providing value for money as they largely operate within the same mind-set, which has not served them well in reflecting the radical changes in student expectations. Universities need to adopt a disruptive approach in enhancing value for money per student. I call for organisational learning and development professionals to be directly engaged to help universities in developing more radical, and effective teaching innovations and operating models. This will enable universities to provide better value for money per student, for all students. 1. It gives me great pleasure to provide you a written statement that I hope

you find helpful in your inquiry into increasing value for money in higher education (HE). I am Mark Loon and the views offered in this statement are mine alone. I am a faculty member with Bath Business School, Bath Spa University. I also assume a number of roles, in particular, as Chair of the British Standards Institute’s (BSI) UK mirror Committee to International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Committee 260 in developing Human Resource Management Standards; Council Member of the British Academy of Management; and Deputy Vice Chair of the Learning and Teaching Committee, University Forum for Human Resource Development.

2. I am writing to you to offer my view in what I believe is an approach that

can enhance value for money in HE. In particular, I believe universities need to adopt radical changes in the way they undertake their teaching operations to enhance the value they provide to their students.

3. A top priority of many UK universities is doing their best to provide value for

money for students. However, while universities are doing many good things, are they doing the right things? To be clear, it is important for universities to continue their current investments e.g. in physical infrastructure such as buildings. However, while I am confident that these investments support growing student numbers as a whole, I am far less certain about its ability to enhance value for money per student. How much do current initiatives actually improve teaching, students’ learning and their employment prospects?

4. I believe one of the underlying issues is that universities operate within a

mind-set that has been largely unchanged. This is partly because of habit as their dominant logic remains unchanged, and partly because of government targets - what gets measured, gets done. To be clear, there are positives that have resulted from this, but I do think one reaches a point of diminishing returns. For example, do more contact hours actually lead to better teaching and learning? In fact, such a ‘more hours’ trajectory can have a counter effect on autonomous and independent thinking. To be fair, this example may be oversimplifying reality but I hope you appreciate the principle that this point aims to highlight.

VAL0027

5. I believe it is important to further encourage universities to explore radically

different operating models and for government to reward trailblazers. I think this may help in enhancing value for money for each and every student. Universities play to their strengths, and rightly so. However, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like nail. There needs to be a shift and broadening in universities repertoire of strengths, to provide value for money for each student. Such a shift can be seen in some universities.

6. For example, such universities have genuinely embraced a blended learning operating model to both enhance learning but at the same minimise costs for students. Yet, these universities are a minority. The innovative approach through apprenticeships is an example, but we need more of such disruptive innovations to cater to a broader spectrum of students, disadvantaged or otherwise.

7. My recommendation is the establishment of a working group that involve

organisational learning and development (L&D) professionals to work with HE to enhance value for money. I believe learning and development (L&D) professionals can make a strong contribution. L&D professionals have not been engaged directly and this appears to be a missed opportunity. L&D in the workplace has advanced tremendously over the years and, I believe there are many lessons that we can learn from these professionals.

8. L&D units have had to radically change their operating models to suit organisational needs in a dynamic environment, and may be the catalyst and role model that HE needs. Some L&D units have a strong portfolio delivery models to suit the broad needs of organisational employees. In addition, they are at the nexus between HE and employers, and have the potential to be able to better understand and connect both parties’ needs in enhancing the value that students receive. In a literature review that I undertook for the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, I found that some companies already feel that they are surrogates for universities as they have to retrain the graduates they recruited. Supporting HE is in the interest of many L&D professionals.

Thank you. Yours Sincerely, -------------------------- Dr Mark Loon (PhD, DBA, MBA, PGCHE and BABA) Senior Fellow Higher Education Academy Faculty Member of Bath Business School, Bath Spa University Chair of the British Standards Institute’s (BSI) UK mirror Committee to

International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Committee 260 in developing Human Resource Management Standards

Council Member of the British Academy of Management

VAL0027

Deputy Vice Chair of the Learning and Teaching Committee, University Forum for Human Resource Development

Expert Panel Member in ISO 30401 Knowledge Management Systems Requirements

Expert Panel Member in BSI PD 76006:2017, Guide to Learning and Development

October 2017

VAL0010

 

Written Evidence submitted by EEF (The Manufacturers Organisation)

About EEF

1. EEF, the manufacturer’s organisation, is the voice of manufacturing in the UK. EEF represents 20,000 manufacturers’ employing almost a million workers across different sectors including engineering aviation, defence, oil and gas, food and chemicals. EEF members operate in the UK, Europe and throughout the world in a dynamic and competitive environment.

2. EEF is also an accredited training provider. Our Technology Training Centre runs over 50 technical training courses in an array of vital manufacturing and engineering skills. The Technology Training Centre, based in Aston, Birmingham, trains 400 apprentices each year, working in partnership with over 70 employers.

3. Accessing the relevant STEM skills manufacturers need now and in the future

is vital for future productivity growth, but EEF research has found that manufacturers recruit STEM graduates to fill these skills gap in their business but are increasingly reporting difficulty in doing so. Almost three-quarters (72%) of manufacturers are concerned with finding the skills they need for their business, and three-quarters (73%) of companies have struggled to key engineering roles in the past three years.

4. Given the multitude of challenges the industry faces: a widening skills gap,

Britain’s decision to leave the EU and a changing higher education landscape, EEF is responding to this inquiry to ensure we have a higher education system that works to deliver the skills we need for the future.

Overview STEM skills are important to manufacturers 5. The manufacturing industry punches above its weight, contributing 10% to all

UK output, 44% of all UK exports and remains one of the UK’s largest economic sectors1. The engineering sector specifically has contributed £468 billion to UK GDP in 2015 alone2. Central to this success is access to people with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skills, which form the backbone of a successful, modern and productive manufacturing industry.

                                                            1 EEF, Manufacturing Fact Card, 2017 2 Engineering UK, The State of UK Engineering, 2017 

VAL0010

 

6. One way in which manufacturers access those skills is through the

recruitment of university graduates to fill highly skilled STEM roles within their companies. Specifically, most manufacturers demand engineering graduates whom fill roles requiring craft, technician, research and development and production related roles skills within their companies. It is therefore no surprise that universities graduates who have undertaken degree courses in engineering are highly demanded by manufacturers. In our survey of manufacturers 63% said, they had recruited an engineering graduate in the past three years, with a 66% planning to do so in the next three years3.

7. Access to these graduates is of paramount importance for manufacturers -

73% of them had struggled to fill engineering positions within their companies. This difficulty in attracting STEM graduates will only be exacerbated as the manufacturing industry moves towards the production of high-value goods and services as well as utilising new technologies. Manufacturers will demand skills at a higher level making recruit more challenging.

8. In addition, the UK’s forthcoming exit from the EU will undoubtedly lead to

restrictions in recruiting EU nationals restricting the talent pool available. Therefore, growing the pipeline of STEM graduates through an effective higher education system will be a key factor in meeting the challenges of facing the industry.

Studying STEM at HE level is rewarding 9. Growing the pipeline of STEM graduates will entail having an effective higher

education system that is successfully filling the current skills gap. In practice, this means we need to encourage more young people to study STEM subjects at university; one way is to disseminate information on how fruitful a career in STEM can be.

                                                            3 EEF, An Up Skill Battle, 2015

VAL0010

 

Chart 1: Manufacturers views on how to increase the number of STEM learners at HE % of companies reporting ways to increase the number of STEM students at HE level

Source: EEF Higher Education Survey 2013-14 10.Given the level of student debt graduates will leave university with, it is

promising to know that engineering graduates, and more widely STEM graduates are highly demanded by employers. Analysis of HESA data found that 66% of engineering graduates were in full-time employment six months after graduating, compared to just 58% for all other graduates. Furthermore, many of these graduates are not only working but also working within an engineering occupation – 71%4.

11.A similar pattern is observed for salaries too. Average earnings for employees

in the manufacturing is £32,047 per annum, compared to £28,299 across all sectors5. For graduates who had studied engineering and technology at university, they earned the third highest salary of all subjects after graduating, £26,000 – only graduates who had studied medicine, dentistry, and veterinary science earned more6. This shows that studying STEM subjects at university give students an advantage in a highly competitive job market.

                                                            4 HESA, Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education in the UK, 2015/16 5 EEF, Manufacturing Fact Card, 2017 6 HESA, median salary of UK graduates, 2015/16 

VAL0010

 

Student satisfaction in engineering is high 12.As the Higher Education Academy student experience study found,

engineering graduates were amongst the highest in terms of perceiving their course as value for money (38%). It found that on engineering students had a greater number of contact hours than average, 30 hours per week; 14 hours of contact time, 13 independent study hours and 3 hours of work outside of their course7.

13.The result of more contact hours was that engineering students were paying approximately £51 for each hour of contact time, compared to £59 per hour for all other students. In comparison to all other students who are paying a 17% premium for their course, engineering students were achieving better value for money from choosing to study engineering at university by paying less per hour of contact time with lecturers8.

Demand for Graduates How many engineers do we need? 14.The manufacturing sector recruits the largest proportion of engineering

graduates (26%) - the majority of those work as production and manufacturing engineers (40%), closely followed by mechanical engineers (38%)9. The sector also accounts for nearly half of all vacancies in the engineering markets, and has done for the last four years. In our report, ‘Improving the quality and quantity of graduate-level skills’, we found that manufacturers rely heavily on the recruitment of graduates to fill these high-skilled roles in their companies. Two-thirds (63%) of manufacturers reported that they had recruited an engineering graduate in the past three years, and a further 66% of them planned on doing so in the next three years.

                                                            7 Student Academic Experience Survey, 2017 8 Based on an average academic year of 38 weeks 9 Engineering UK, The State of UK Engineering, 2017 

VAL0010

 

Chart 2: Manufacturers' demand for engineering graduates is on the rise, % companies reporting recent and planned recruitment of graduates

Source: EEF Higher Education Survey 2013-14 15.Our higher education system must therefore be able to provide a large

proportion of these graduates. However, Engineering UK estimates the UK will need approximately 186,000 skilled entrants into engineering occupations annually to meet demand. Based on these projections the UK will fall short of demand by 20,000 engineers annually. This evidence shows that our higher education system is fall short in supplying new engineering graduates and failing to address this will risk widen the skill shortage gap in manufacturing unless we can boost the number of engineers between now and 2024.

Higher minimum requirements 16.Over the last few years, we have seen the development of new technologies

within the manufacturing industry, and as a result, there has been a shift towards the production of high-value goods and services. This has meant employers are beginning to automate lower-skilled roles, often those involving the repetition of manual tasks, and recruiting for medium-to-high skilled roles.

17.This change in skills demanded has meant the minimum requirements for graduates entering the profession have also changed. Universities are now looking for at least two science subjects at A Level, ideally in physics and maths. Both these subjects successfully prepare students in both the theoretical and practical elements of a degree in engineering. Equally, our higher education system must reflect and adapt to the skill needs that

VAL0010

 

businesses require today and in the future. STEM university programmes should mirror the same technology and capital equipment used in industry so that students have an opportunity to get hands on experience, but also be work ready.

Supply for Graduates Increasing applications but stagnant numbers of graduates 18.The number of university applications made to engineering courses has

increased at a faster rate compared to all other subjects. In the last five years, applications to engineering courses had increased by 5% compared to 3% for all other subjects10. There were also increases within specific sub-disciplines of engineering, in particular ‘general engineering’ and ‘mechanical engineering’. Despite the different challenges the sector faces in attracting new graduates, the increases in application numbers is a positive sign.

Chart 3: Applications to engineering courses by sub-discipline

Source: UCAS, 2010 to 2016 19.Over the same period, there has been an increase in the number of female

applicants to study STEM subjects. Encouraging girls to apply for STEM subjects at university remains a challenge, but for manufacturers it is a potentially large pool of labour that can help to address the skills gap. Better engagement between employers and educational institutions like universities will help to break down the perception that engineering is not an attainable

                                                            10 UCAS, 2016

VAL0010

 

and fruitful career path for girls. It will also aid educators in being confident to give careers advice on engineering, given only 31% currently felt confident in doing so11.

20.Despite growing applications numbers this has not translated into more

engineering and STEM graduates. HESA statistics show that there whilst there have been an increase in the number of students applying to study engineering, the number actually qualify with a degree at the end as a proportion of applicants, has remained stable at 15%. This underpins the need to both increase the quality of applicants to engineering, and more widely STEM courses, but also the number of places offered to study engineering at university.

International students 21.Non-UK nationals, mainly non-EU nationals, make up a significant proportion

of engineering students. In 2016 32% of students studying engineering in UK institutions were non-UK nationals, with the majority from outside the EU too. Non-EU student also made up a large proportion of postgraduate students within engineering too, 69%.

22.Some universities we have spoken to say they are dependent of non-EU students to help subsidise their engineering departments. These students are important to engineering departments because non-EU students pay anywhere between £10,000 up to £35,000 in tuition fees each year, in addition to the money they spend in the UK economy during their studies and accommodation costs.

23.Furthermore, many of these graduates go on to work in skilled engineering

positions, however the current UK migration policy is not allowing them to stay in the UK to seek employment. The decision to abolish the Tier 1 – post study work route, allowing non-EU graduates to stay in the UK for up to years to seek employment has made the recruitment of non-EU students difficult. Under the new rules, non-EU students will only have 4 months to seek employment after graduating. For this reason we want to see the post study route reinstated for non-EU students, making it easier for employers to recruit those students.

Tuition Fee Debate Student numbers for engineering courses have increased 24.Since their introduction, tuition fees have been subject to much debate,

especially because recent analysis found that on average students would                                                             11 EEF, Women in Manufacturing, 2014 

VAL0010

 

leave university with £40,000 worth of debt12. After the 2012 increase to £9,000 per year, the growth in overall applications and acceptances slowed to 3.6%. However, for engineering courses acceptances had increased by 29% between 2010 and 2016 - only Computer Sciences and Biological Sciences saw a bigger increase13. This underpins the suggestion that young people are making an informed choice about the career they which to pursue, and the relevant degree they would require.

Chart 4: Increases to acceptances to university in the UK by subject from 2010 to 2016

Source: UCAS, 2010 to 2016 25.The main source of income for universities are tuition fees and education

contracts, accounting for 48% of all income. Other sources of income include, funding body grants, and research grants and contracts. However, both these funding streams have decreased in the past year, making universities even more reliant on tuition fees. As the evidence shows, the tuition fee increase has had a positive impact on the numbers of students choosing to study Engineering at university.

26.As students make more informed career choices, a reduction in fees could lead to higher educational institutions being unable to cross-subside funding

                                                            12 Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2017 13 UCAS, 2016 

VAL0010

 

to provide enough engineering places. This is because delivering one place on an engineering course is considerably higher than many other disciplines due to the investment in equipment and hours. As a result, these high-cost subjects are classed as strategically important and vulnerable (SIV) subjects and universities are awarded a premium offer these courses.

27.UK student fees, together with the SIV premium received does not cover the costs of delivering one engineering place. Higher student fees paid by international students therefore helps subside the cost of delivering one place. Ensuring that international students are still able to study in the UK will go some way in allowing higher educational institutions to cross-subside and continue to provide enough places on the course.

28.For this reason, the government should continue to offer competitive funding for HEIs delivering STEM, including the £200m funding pot. Maintaining the pot but also periodically reviewing it to safeguard it is sufficient will ensure that HEIs can keep up to speed with technological changes and advancements in industries such as manufacturing and engineering.

For further information please do not hesitate to contact me. October 2017

VAL0024

1  

Written Evidence submitted by GSM London

Executive Summary 1) GSM London is an independent higher education institution based in London.

We play an active role in the development of independent higher education and are significant contributors to widening participation in higher education.

2) GSM London welcomes the Committee’s focus on improving value for money in higher education. As an alternative provider, we place great importance on bringing innovative approaches that maximise value for both our students and the institution.

3) Our submission addresses all themes raised by the Committee in its call for

submissions. 4) GSM London believes that while the use of destinations of leavers data is a

valuable way of assessing institutional performance, it should only form part of a more holistic approach that properly accounts for the impact a given student body’s make-up has on graduate outcomes. Assessments must accurately reflect the increasing diversity of provision and students within the HE sector and take account of a broad range of motivations and intended outcomes.

5) As an institution with a large WP student body, GSM London is greatly

encouraged by the consultation’s focus on social justice and support for disadvantaged students. Achieving this requires different types of HE providers in order to meet the needs of students from different backgrounds. As such, we recommend directing the focus for more competition in the sector towards encouraging greater diversity in the provision of higher education, rather than simply increasing the number of providers.

6) GSM London welcomes the introduction of the OfS and will provide considered responses to the consultation papers published on 19 October 2017. In particular, we will recommend that a blanket approach is not applied to a set of providers with heterogeneous approaches, goals and student bodies. Current assessments of performance on a variety of indicators, from non-completion rates to graduate outcomes, are geared towards reinforcing the supremacy of institutions with high performing students on entry who are destined for strong outcomes.

7) Widening participation requires innovation on the part of institutions, through the provision of accelerated degrees. The current loan funding arrangements are tied to traditional 3 year full-time models of delivery rather than matching the speed of study. This act as a significant barrier to students from lower income backgrounds, as they are not able to access a loan to cover the full costs of the course. To get better value for money we should allow students to complete their degree (and receive the related funding) at their preferred speed. This will reduce expenditure on their living costs and allow them to enter

VAL0024

2  

the workplace as graduates at an earlier stage and start repaying their student loans sooner.

Submission About GSM London 8) GSM London is an independent higher education institution based in London

with campuses in Greenwich and Greenford. Founded in 1973,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_London  ‐  cite_note‐Telegraph‐2 GSM London offers business-specific courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels alongside other specialist training.

9) We have over 7,000 students undertaking career-oriented degrees validated by Plymouth University.

10) We are an alternative HE provider, which means that our students can only

draw down a maximum of £6,000 per annum in loan funding. To make our programmes accessible to students we are effectively compelled to match our fees to the available loan funding. There is a suggestion that our provision must be deficient in some way because we charge one-third less than most competitors. The fee levels are not sustainable in the longer term, particularly as a London provider with associated London weighting for staff and property costs. However, we know that the majority of our students are unable to self-fund all or part of their studies due to a range of personal circumstances such as significant caring responsibilities.

11) GSM London plays an active role in the development of independent HE. This includes contributing to sector bodies such as GuildHE, HEFCE Strategic Advisory Committees, and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

12) As a longstanding alternative provider, we have also been early adopters of engagement with key bodies like the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). This has enabled them to more effectively take account of the role of alternative providers in the HE sector and has enabled us to demonstrate the work that we do within our communities and the quality provision we offer.

13) We are dedicated to the regeneration of local communities through progressive and innovative higher education. We focus on supporting our students to maximise their potential through a tailored learning approach that gives them the opportunity to improve their employability, and greater power of freedom and choice in their lives.

14) GSM London welcomes the government’s support for improving student

choice in higher education by enabling the growth of quality alternative providers. GSM London works hard to provide an innovative, tailored education for our students, including the provision of accelerated degree courses for students who do not want long “summer” breaks between study and want to maintain the momentum in their learning.

VAL0024

3  

15) We also offer foundation year courses as part of our degrees. These enable

students who wish to undertake a degree but do not yet hold the relevant qualifications to obtain an appropriate level of knowledge, skills and confidence to allow them to progress through the higher levels of their course.

16) This ties into GSM London’s work as a significant contributor to sector-wide efforts on widening participation (WP). We undertake this in a meaningful way – creating opportunities for students from non-traditional academic and socio-economic backgrounds. Over 90% of our students are Black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME), with an average age of 30 upon commencing their studies.

17) We believe that established quality alternative providers should be supported to compete on a level playing field with publicly funded institutions, for example through a quicker route to obtaining their own degree awarding powers (DAPs) and we are reading the consultation on the new route with interest. This will continue to ensure that students are able to make the best choice about their education and access the types of courses that fit best with their individual circumstances and ambitions.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 18) GSM London welcomes the Education Committee’s focus on graduate

outcomes and on the opportunities higher education can present upon graduation. While there is value in assessing institutions’ performance on graduate outcomes by reviewing the destinations data of its graduates, we regard this singular focus as unduly reductionist. Applying the same metrics to ascertain performance on graduate outcomes across a heterogeneous set of HEIs may not sufficiently account for the discrepancies between them. This issue is particularly pertinent in light of the Government’s drive to increase diversity and offer greater choice to students.

19) Salary and job title alone should not be the defining factor on which success is measured. Many of our graduates complete their degree to gain essential skills and knowledge to run their own businesses but some of these may deliver modest incomes due to other commitments in their lives. However, they are still making valuable contributions to society and acting as positive role models within their communities. The use of HMRC data alone falls short of measuring the value for money added by these factors.

20) GSM London is an example of an institution with an atypical student body,

with 91% Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and 88% mature students enrolled on our programmes. Learners are typically ethnic minorities, economically challenged, and the first in their family to participate in higher education. These factors tend to have a real impact on the destinations of graduates. For example, many mature students have a different set of priorities and goals to the younger students that typically populate traditional institutions. They are therefore less likely to aspire towards securing the type of graduate employment at large organisations which recruit a fresh set of new graduates each year. Mature students also tend to have limited mobility because of family commitments.

VAL0024

4  

21) We therefore urge against a one-size-fits-all approach to evaluation of

graduate outcomes. We would welcome a more holistic approach to properly reflect the post-HE life trajectories of non-traditional graduates. This would ensure that the destination of leavers is grounded on an understanding of their backgrounds and life circumstances. It may also broaden the conception of higher education value beyond a monetary aspects to encompass societal benefits. This includes personal development, confidence building, providing positive role models and other added value students take to their local communities upon graduating.

22) GSM London believes that the development of a learning gain metric for

quality assessments needs to be prioritised. This will help to properly assess an institution’s success at improving outcomes for those who graduate from its degree courses. Learning gain recognises a student’s progression from the start of their course (from what can be a low level of prior educational attainment) to their level of achievement at the end. This is an essential means of tackling the attainment gap between students that have come from non-traditional socio-economic and academic backgrounds and those that have been able to undertake a more traditional route into HE.

23) GSM London recommends that the Education Committee: a) Calls for the government to review whether the current standard of

metrics applied to assessing graduate outcomes adequately accounts for student bodies that vary significantly from the norm – e.g. those with a higher proportion of mature students or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

b) Calls for the government to explore options to include more qualitative data submissions on the destination of leavers to supplement quantitative data. Current mechanisms for measuring HE activity, such as the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education, can be limited in scope and are retrospective in nature. We believe that the development of a “learning gain” metric offers a fairer way of evaluating institutions’ contributions to the achievement and outcomes of their students.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 24) GSM London welcomes the focus on social justice and ensuring that

institutions have plans to support disadvantaged students in or entering higher education. As an institution with a student body largely made up of students who fall within the WP categories, we have observed some of the social justice challenges faced by this group. This includes direct experience of dealing with prejudice, stereotyping or other forms of discrimination. Our students can be tentative and uncertain about entering higher education. This is often due to a lack of self-confidence after a prolonged period away from education altogether, or as a consequence of having limited success at school and college.

25) We take the view that achieving greater levels of social justice requires different types of HE providers in order to meet the needs of students from different backgrounds. Simply compelling a greater range of people into

VAL0024

5  

systems that comply with long-established ideas of what higher education looks and feels like is likely to be met with indifference at best and outright alienation at worse.

26) It is for the same reason that we dedicate significant effort into identifying the best way to attract and encourage non-traditional students into HE. To meet the needs of those who have been away from any formal education for extended periods, and who are unlikely to have received the same guidance on the entry routes to HE as those from traditional backgrounds, alternative methods of outreach are required.

27) The Education Committee should therefore consider the need for diversity in recruitment models and value different approaches. Although GSM London pays a subscription to UCAS, the vast majority of our students are recruited directly using a combination of digital and printed advertising and face to face methods. Outreach to build aspiration is also critical through engagement with local schools, colleges, community centres and with ethnic groups, among whom many believe that higher education is not really available to them.

28) Such outreach activity enables us to reach underserved communities of non-traditional students. The messaging looks to raise aspirations by presenting individuals with the opportunity to enhance their career options or become role models for their families and communities.

29) GSM London recommends that the Education Committee:

a) supports the Government’s drive to increase competition within the HE market and directs this focus towards encouraging greater diversity in the provision of higher education, rather than expecting new providers to fit the existing mould of the established HE sector.

Senior management pay in universities 30) GSM London welcomes the Committee’s focus on senior executive pay at

universities and its desire to ensure that the work done by senior executives is linked to the role they play in delivering good student experiences and outcomes. We believe that the growing public scrutiny over Vice-Chancellor salaries is underpinned by wider concerns related to efficiency and the proper allocation of public resources at HEIs.

31) We believe that part of our role as alternative providers, who do not receive any direct funding from the government and with a financial structure different from traditional institutions, is to bring innovation to the HE sector by designing programmes that both maximise institutional efficiency and provide an additional layer of choice to students. The accelerated degree courses we offer are a good example of this as they require the institution to make the most of its resources by using the full calendar year to deliver our degrees. This is also reflected in the workload and involvement of senior executives, for whom this prolonged period of engagement requires a level of immersion and intensity that likely differs from their counterparts at traditional institutions.

VAL0024

6  

32) However, as stated above, access to accelerated degrees requires students to self-fund part of their tuition fees or for the institution to deliver them at a loss. This is because students undertaking accelerated degrees can only access tuition fee support for two years, but receive the equivalent of three years’ teaching and support over these two years. Access to accelerated degrees is denied to those students who are unable to self-fund, which is inequitable. This limits institutions looking to enhance efficiency and requires them to fall back on three-year degree provision rather than offer an efficient and cost effective solution for many students.

33) GSM London recommends that the Education Committee:

a) Seeks clarity on the motivation behind any government plans as they relate to senior executive pay. We believe that there is a more salient case to be made about ways in which organisational efficiency at universities can be enhanced beyond the politically expedient focus on senior pay.

b) Calls on the government to develop adaptable funding methods to match the speed of delivery of different length degrees to better facilitate the provision of accelerated degrees and make better use of expensive publicly funded real estate which can remain dormant for significant periods of time.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 34) GSM London welcomes the Committee’s focus on ensuring universities

deliver high-quality, effective teaching in order to improve the life chances of students. We wish to highlight that teaching quality is not an absolute term and more attention should be given to the conditions in which institutions enable students to learn, including the competencies, personal development and confidence-building that are vital to student outcomes.

35) To this end, GSM London has developed an innovative strengths-based

learning teaching model. This flips conventional higher education teaching models on their head; rather than focusing on students’ areas of weakness and seeking to improve these, it identifies students’ strengths and challenges them to cultivate and capitalise on these. This is particularly effective for mature students who bring a wealth of experience to the classroom and beyond. The ways in which material is taught, and the means by which work is assessed, is geared towards the learning style of students. This enables them to maximise their potential outcomes and improve their learning gain.

36) In practical terms, this creates a greater variation in the modes of study, so that the more traditional methods, such as lectures and seminars, become part of a broader mix which includes more active forms of learning. For example, assessments that measure students’ learning are developed using techniques that capture how students are able to apply their knowledge and understanding in their own terms. For example, where appropriate, we are introducing opportunities for assessments to be submitted in the form of blogs, video presentations and business reports to demonstrate knowledge, understanding of context and application of principles learned in a practical way, as well as presentation skills and confidence in their subject. Likewise,

VAL0024

7  

lectures and seminars are complemented by visits to working industry facilities to enhance employability and industry engagement.

37) GSM London recommends that the Education Committee

encourages the use of a more diverse set of criteria to judge teaching quality and effectiveness.

The Role of the Office for Students 38) GSM London welcomes the introduction of the OfS and looks forward to its

role in promoting value for money in the HE sector. However, as stated above there is a need to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be applied to a heterogeneous set of providers with different approaches, goals and student bodies.

39) We urge the OfS to go beyond the mere recognition of the diversity of

providers in the sector, and to fully embrace it. This requires a nuanced approach to regulating that does not disadvantage those in the sector with predominantly WP student bodies. For example, by differentiating the benchmarks by taking into account different risk factors of varied student bodies. Assessments of performance on a variety of indicators, from teaching quality to graduate outcomes, are currently geared towards reinforcing the authority of institutions with student bodies destined for strong outcomes.

40) Meanwhile, it remains unclear as to how non-traditional institutions with clear WP agendas are incentivised under the current system. The costs of supporting WP students are significant yet this is not currently recognised in the two-tier loan funding system available to students studying at public institutions and those studying with alternative providers. Alternative providers are currently excluded from entering into a fair access agreement which would enable them to increase fees to cover the costs of supporting their students.

41) An important potential contributor to WP is access to innovative degree

models such as accelerated degree courses, of which GSM London is one of the first and largest providers. These degrees offer a number of advantages by giving students the chance to gain a value-for-money, vocationally-relevant degree and be available to work much sooner than if they took a standard three-year degree course. These courses are much more appealing to students from lower income backgrounds and those who wish to enter the world of work as soon as possible.

42) We reiterate that the current fee arrangements in the sector act as a barrier

towards the provision of flexible courses (e.g. accelerated degrees). We will review the proposals in the consultation papers with interest.

43) GSM London recommends that the Education Committee:

a) Seeks clarity on how the government will ensure that efforts to widen participation are given prominence in assessments of institutions. It is important that institutions are held to account for delivering WP targets and that they share best practice.

VAL0024

8  

b) Calls for the development of an effective learning gain measure as part of efforts to monitor institutions’ success at widening access and participation, in line with the development of access and participation plans.

c) Calls on the government to develop plans to tackle the tuition fee system constraints for access to, and the provision of, accelerated degrees.

October 2017

VAL0047

Written Evidence submitted by GuildHE

1. GuildHE is an officially recognised representative body for UK Higher Education. Our members include universities, university colleges, further education colleges and specialist institutions from both the traditional and private (“for profit” and “not for profit”) sectors. Member institutions include some major providers in professional subject areas including art, design and media, music and the performing arts; agriculture and food; education; maritime; health and sports.

Introduction

2. Value for money, and how value for money is perceived, or measured are complex issues. It will mean different things to different stakeholders (such as students, staff and wider society), but will also often hinge on the perception of the individual. This places the higher education sector in a difficult position when trying not only to define, but also to assess value for money.

3. The Student Academic Experience Survey (Neves & Hillman, Student Academic Experience Survey, 2017) suggests that students see teaching quality and contact time as key issues when thinking about value for money. Another correlating factor was ‘expected experience’. Most undergraduate students have not studied at another provider, and so can only refer to their own perceptions as opposed to other HE experiences.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching in Small and specialist institutions

4. According to the Student Academic Experience Survey 2017, Specialist HEIs were seen as representing good value-for-money in the sector, with 36% of respondents rating them as good or very good, compared to a sector average of 35%.

5. This could be because Specialist HEIs have more contact hours than other kinds of providers, and less time ‘working outside the university’. The 2017 survey reported a greater proportion of teaching time in classes with <16 students (46%, compared to the sector average of 35%), and a smaller proportion of time in classes with >50 students (22%, compared with the sector average of 33%).

6. However, it is important to note that quality of teaching cannot only be measured in contact hours - and value for money is not as simple as dividing fees by the number of contact time given.

7. Feedback was also listed as ‘more in depth’ in Specialist HEIs, and students had more contact with lecturers outside timetabled hours. This

VAL0047

aspect of the survey suggests that there is more to student perceptions of value for money than how many hours are spent in the classroom. Perhaps it is also around the development of relationships between staff and students, and that students are given the opportunity to improve their work (which explains why institutions with high levels of detailed feedback are considered more ‘value for money’).

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

8. GuildHE welcome a transparent approach to graduate outcome data. However, both of the commonly used datasets for measuring this can be somewhat problematic when trying to ascertain an accurate picture of graduate outcomes.

9. Longitudinal Employment Outcome (LEO) data measures graduate (who have completed an undergraduate degree only) salaries in one, three and five years’ time - and can be used to show differences in salaries by provider and degree subject, as well as gender. However, it does not include self employed data - therefore not providing data for a significant proportion of graduates. This is particularly problematic for GuildHE institutions, where graduates are more likely to enter freelance or entrepreneurial professions due to the types of courses offered. For example, the percentage of graduates in sustained employment or further study at Rose Bruford - a drama school - increased by over 20% when self employment data was included in the analysis.

10. The other measure of graduate outcomes are the Destination of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) surveys; one is conducted after six months (short DLHE) whereas the other is conducted after three years (long DLHE). The short DLHE has been criticised for not giving graduates enough time to have made a choice about their employment outcomes,. In contrast the long DLHE - whilst more accurate than the six month survey - did not have as many graduates participating in the survey.

11. While both are valuable data sources, GuildHE asks the committee to be mindful of the shortcomings of both LEO and DLHE when analysing graduate destinations.

12. More broadly, when considering graduate outcomes there are other, external factors at play. Salary data is determined by a number of key aspects, including course studied, prior attainment, socio-economic background, race and gender. Higher Education providers - although they are in a position to advise, coach and assist - cannot choose graduate outcomes for their students. Furthermore, the data does not benchmark according to regional market effect.

13. One way of looking at graduate outcome data in the context of student value for money is comparing the salary with how much they would have been expected to earn regardless of their university - essentially, an attempt to calculate value added. The Economist recently published an

VAL0047

article examining this by developing a ‘statistical model that predicts wages based on the subjects people study, their exam results at school, age, family income, whether they went to private or state school and where the university was located.’ (The Economist, Which British universities do most to boost graduate salaries?, 2017). The results place five GuildHE members in the top fifteen, noting their strong links to particular industries, labour markets and professions.

14. While graduate outcomes are of course important, they are not the sole reason for attending university, and not the exclusive measure of value for money. Government must not simply equate high earnings with good quality education, as students have many reasons for entering higher education - not simply to earn more money. GuildHE consider that the aims of higher education identified in the Robbins report still hold good: as well as instruction in skills (and the earnings associated with that) higher education should promote the powers of the mind, advance learning and transmit a common culture and standards of citizenship.

15. A greater focus on earnings could also have an impact on part-time

mature provision, which is already in sharp decline following the introduction of higher fees. It may also discourage institutions from taking on students from widening participation backgrounds. Research has proven that the biggest factor in deciding one's salary is family background as opposed to degree (Britton, Dearden, Shephard, Vignoles, How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background, 2016). It is therefore important that institutions who attract a larger proportion of widening participation students are not considered as failing to provide value for money education.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

16. GuildHE strongly believe that higher education is transformative, and it should be accessible to all that are able to benefit from it (Higher Education 2022, GuildHE, 2017).

17. One of the ways this could be achieved is by developing a more flexible, credit-based financial system, which would enable students to transfer onto different courses with more ease. This would not only help students from nontraditional backgrounds engage with higher education, but would improve the value of the sector overall.

18. GuildHE would also support the reintroduction of maintenance grants. Students who are poor before going to university are more likely to be in debt and to leave university with the largest debts, while better-off students are less likely to have debts and leave with the lowest debts (Callender and Jackson, Does the fear of debt deter students from higher education? 2010). Maintenance grants were seen as a tangible way of

VAL0047

supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds through university.

19. Robust and well-signposted mental health services for supporting disadvantaged backgrounds. According to a recent HEPI/Unite Students report, two-thirds (67%) of all applicants are confident that they will be able to find the right support for a mental health condition at university (HEPI/Unite Students, Reality Check: A report on university applicants’ attitudes and perceptions, 2017). Students who identify as LGBT and from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to have a pre-existing mental health condition, so it’s particularly important that these students have access to support in order to fully engage with university life. Another key issue is that only 37% applicants with a pre-existing mental health condition feel comfortable disclosing a mental health condition to their university. This needs to be addressed so that institutions are able best to support their students, and applicants feel confident that this information will not affect their applications negatively.

The role of the Office for Students

20. GuildHE welcomes the establishment of the Office for Students. Its powers and duties allow financial, reputational and student protection risks to be addressed and for all providers of higher education - old or new - to be regulated fairly, consistently and on the basis of risk.

21. 21. Teaching Excellence and student outcomes Framework (TEF) is, in

essence, a performance management framework for teaching. It provides the OfS with a powerful tool for incentivising a focus on teaching quality and assuring value for money for students. Eleven out of the thirty-nine GuildHE institutions who submitted, received a Gold award (roughly 18% of all Gold institutions) and eighteen were awarded Silver. Ten of the eleven members who received Gold were from specialist institutions - eight of which were creative institutions. This is a good indicator that many specialist institutions are providing high quality teaching.

22. 22. But high quality provision in areas like the creative and digital arts, agriculture and agritech, maritime engineering, and the performing arts has costs that cannot be met by fees alone. This is particularly problematic in specialist institutions as they cannot cross-subsidise from lower-cost, classroom courses. GuildHE welcomes the Office for Students’ commitment to using its funding and regulatory powers to ensure that the sector remains diverse in terms of provision. Genuine student choice requires a diverse range of providers and types of provision.

Conclusions

23. GuildHE hope that the committee will find this response to provide useful context when analysing the sectors’ value for money. Here is a key summary of the main points made in the response:-

VAL0047

- Defining and assessing value for money is complicated, and has different meanings to different stakeholders. - Students consider high numbers of contact hours, quality teaching and detailed feedback to be key indicators of ‘value for money: smaller and specialist institutions excel at providing these services. - Graduate earnings data is a valuable tool for informing student choice. But the current metrics are flawed, must be treated with caution and should not be taken as a proxy for value for money. - A credit based system would make the higher education system more flexible and provide better ‘value for money’ for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. GuildHE would also welcome the reintroduction of maintenance grants. - Robust mental health and wellbeing provision will help students from disadvantaged backgrounds engage fully and get the most for their money out of their education. Applicants need to be encouraged to disclose pre-existing mental health conditions so HEIs can adequately provide for them. - We look forward to the OfS maintaining funding and regulatory support for diversity in the higher education sector.

October 2017

Written evidence submitted by the Higher Education Commission This inquiry submission has been written on behalf of the Higher Education Commission, and is based on the findings of the Commission’s fifth inquiry report One Size Won’t Fit All: The Challenges Facing the Office for Students. About the Higher Education Commission

1. The Higher Education Commission is an independent body made up of leaders from the education sector, the business community and the major political parties.

2. Established in response to demand from Parliamentarians for a more informed and reflective discourse on higher education issues, the Commission examines higher education policy, holds evidence-based inquiries, and produces written reports with recommendations for policymakers.

3. The Commission is chaired by Lord Norton, a Conservative peer and academic.

Background

4. The Higher Education Commission’s fifth inquiry report was initiated to help understand the implications for higher education of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Under the new regulatory regime, the Higher Education Commission aimed to examine the stock of the breadth of the sector’s offer to students. The report aimed to help the new Office for Students deliver the Government’s agenda by examining and making recommendations about the range of provision in HE outside the ‘standard offer’ of the three year campus-based degree aimed at 18 year olds.

The role of the Office for Students

5. The Commission believes that if we want to succeed as a knowledge economy it is vital that the sector, the Office for Students takes active steps to protect and support the diversity of provision offered to students.

6. The Commission highlighted three strategic challenges that will be faced by the new regulator, involving the industrial strategy, social mobility, and the funding regime.

a. Throughout the inquiry, the Commission heard from providers that offer highly personalised and industry-orientated courses; however their offerings tended to be small and niche, with witnesses often claiming that they do not wish to scale up such provision. The Commission is concerned about the long term sustainability of this approach, particularly in delivering the Government’s Industrial

Strategy. In line with this, the Commission believes that universities need to work more flexibly with small and medium-sized enterprises in their provision of sandwich degrees and degree apprenticeships.

b. Through the discussions with providers offering flexible provision, the Commission heard about the use of retention as the only valid marker for success, particularly as a key metric in the Teaching Excellence Framework. For provision seeking to widen participation, this can be misleading and could lead to discouraging institutions from taking ‘risky’ students. In addition, further education colleges have played an important role in widening participation. Given the impact the lifting of the student number controls has had on higher education in further education college provision, the Commission is very worried about the negative impact of tuition fee increases on higher education delivered in further education provision, not least in relation to opening up the sector to part-time and mature students.

c. Higher delivery costs are associated with intensive teaching and innovation, particularly in the provision of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and part-time and accelerated study. Without changes to the funding model, the Government cannot expect diverse provision to flourish in the sector.

7. The Office for Students in its new role as the champion of ‘choice for students’ and ‘value for the tax payer’ must address these challenges. It is hoped that the findings in this report and the recommendations outlined below will aid the new regulator in ensuring the continued success of the sector.

a. The OfS should work with HEIs and alternative providers to identify how personalised and industry-orientated provision can be scaled up and replicated across the system.

b. The OfS, as a principal funder and regulator of the HE sector, should develop ways of incentivising industry practitioner involvement in universities.

c. The OfS should closely monitor the impact of degree apprenticeships on sandwich courses and other work based learning provision.

d. The OfS should address cost issues around part-time study and accelerated degree programmes, so as to support wider provision of these non-standard modes.

e. We recommend that the OfS monitors the implications of different delivery costs between HE and FE, not least in terms of enabling entry to part-time and mature students.

f. Research should be commissioned by the OfS to better understand how students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be encouraged to use sources of information more critically in their HE choices.

g. The OfS should provide Parliament with an annual report mapping the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, commenting on trends and explanations for changing patterns of provision.

h. The OfS should look into the viability of a scheme such as the one recommended by the Commission’s report on Regulation, which stated a protection or insurance scheme coordinated by the lead regulator should be put in place.

Bibliography Higher Education Commission (2013), Regulating Higher Education, Policy Connect: London Higher Education Commission (2017), One Size Won’t Fit All: The Challenges Facing the Office for Students, Policy Connect: London

October 2017

VAL0034

 

Written Evidence submitted by Jisc About Jisc 1. Jisc is the UK's expert body for digital technology and digital resources in higher

education (HE), further education (FE), skills and research. Since our foundation in the early 1990s, we have played a pivotal role in the adoption of information technology by UK universities and colleges, supporting them to improve learning, teaching, the student experience and institutional efficiency, as well as enabling more powerful research.

2. We operate shared digital infrastructures and services for the HE, FE, skills and

research sectors. This includes the Janet Network – a unique asset and a real competitive advantage for the UK’s education and research base. As one of the biggest National Research and Education Networks (NREN) in the world, Janet provides access to very high speed, reliable connectivity and cybersecurity. We also negotiate sector-wide deals with IT vendors and commercial publishers.

3. Jisc's services, designed and optimised for higher education, generate a

quantifiable overall benefit to the national economy. A conservative estimate suggests our three most important services alone create at least £113.5m each year in direct savings for the UK’s HE sector. These savings, and other associated efficiencies, enable universities to free up resources for mainstream teaching and research activities, contributing to the value that HE teaching and research bring to the national economy. A study for Jisc by an independent economics consultancy in 2015 suggested that the low end of the range for this contribution could be £600m annually.

Overview of response 4. Jisc welcomes the committee’s inquiry on this important issue. In this response

we suggest that technology has a key role to play in improving student perceptions of value for money in HE. We outline some of the ways technology can add value for students by enhancing the learning experience; facilitate high quality teaching; and enable institutions to effectively support all of their learners to achieve the best outcomes. We provide a view on effective measures of teaching quality and the potential of learning analytics to support disadvantaged students and drive general improvements in student retention and attainment, all of which could contribute to perceptions of value for money in the HE sector.

5. We also suggest that improving employment outcomes is a key aspect in meeting student perceptions of value for money and argue that the sector must do more to improve the digital capabilities of both students and teaching staff to and ensure graduates are equipped with the skills they need for the job

VAL0034

 

market, both now and in the future. Relatedly, we note that data-informed curriculum planning is one strategy that can be used to support employability. Government can play a role supporting providers take this approach.

6. Finally, we suggest that to help ensure the potential benefits of technology are

realised in the sector, the Office for Students should focus on supporting and encouraging innovation around learning, teaching and student experience throughout its work.

Recommendations Recommendation 1: Measures of teaching quality should include indicators of learner engagement, which may in the future be derived from learning analytics records. Recommendation 2: Measures of teaching intensity need to include an understanding of the kinds of activities which drive students’ active engagement in their subject, and need to ensure that activities delivered digitally are not prejudiced through the measures. Recommendation 3: Measures of teaching quality need to be appropriate to online and distance learning, where much of the value is in the extensive preparation of the course activities before the students move through them. Recommendation 4: The Department for Education (DfE), Office for Students (OfS) and the TEF panel must ensure the TEF does not act as a barrier against institutions innovating with technology-enhanced approaches. Recommendation 5: Institutions that do not currently have learning analytics in place should give consideration to adopting it at the earliest opportunity. Recommendation 6: Higher education institutions should ensure the digital agenda is being led at senior levels – and should embed digital capabilities into recruitment, staff development, appraisal, reward and recognition. Recommendation 7: For government to work with, and facilitate collaboration between, relevant stakeholders to progress development of a shared digital skills language between education and employment. Recommendation 8: Higher education institutions should use data-informed curriculum planning where feasible to help ensure that all students derive the best value from their HE studies by being able to progress into postgraduate education or appropriate employment. Recommendation 9: Government should support providers in taking a data driven approach to curriculum planning by bringing together relevant data from across departments and structuring datasets in a way that facilitates interrogation by data manipulation for business intelligence insights.

VAL0034

 

Recommendation 10: Institutions should use learning analytics to help provide support for disadvantaged students, investigate the factors contributing to differential outcomes, and monitor the success of resulting interventions. Substantive response to call for evidence

Quality and effectiveness of teaching Technology-enhanced learning 7. Digital technologies have the potential to help transform the management,

delivery and assessment of learning, boost student outcomes and enhance the student experience. When technology-enhanced learning is designed into the curriculum, it can increase the provision of high-quality teaching and learning activities, building on educational research about what drives effective learning:

a. Active learning by using alternatives to the traditional lecture: This might

include learners researching topics online, using simulations and online tutorials, carrying out collaborative online assignments and interrogating datasets. In a flipped model, technology is used to deliver or engage learners with the topic content online before the class, freeing up the use of face-to-face time for active group work and discussion

b. Frequent formative assessment and rapid feedback: Online tests are a classic example of this, and can be particularly effective in STEM subjects and other curriculum areas for which meaningful multiple-choice questions can be designed. Clickers or other audience response systems can be used in class to enable immediate feedback – and can be used by lecturers to identify topics requiring further explanation. Discussion groups and social media can be used to encourage learners to share their understanding and receive feedback

c. Peer-to-peer learning and increased interaction among students: This might include using group work and shared digital assignments in a range of formats, using collaborative online environments such as wikis for shared writing, and using discussion groups and social media

d. Monitoring student progress and intervening when necessary: This is

often facilitated by formative assessment, but can also be enabled by checking on students’ work in open environments such as blogs and wikis. Using face-to-face time for group work or tutorials rather than lectures can also allow lecturers to listen to students and quickly identify and tackle misconceptions

8. Significant value is added to students’ education by the learning and research

resources the university makes available, both through the physical library and the increasingly significant digital resource provision. The availability of digitised primary sources such as rare Early English books or parliamentary papers enables universities to provide independent research activities for students

VAL0034

 

which would not previously have been possible in many settings, and which can stretch and challenge students.

9. Technology-enhanced approaches also make it easier and more convenient for students to study in their own time and from a wide range of locations, including catching up on lectures they may have missed or wish to review. In addition to providing greater flexibility for all students, this can help enable participation by those who would otherwise experience difficulties (e.g. full-time parents, employees, young carers, or those located in the geographical cold-spots of the HE system).

10.Evidence from the 2017 Jisc Digital student experience tracker survey1 shows that students strongly recognise the convenience and flexibility benefits of technology being used to support their learning – 70% of the over 8000 students surveyed agreed that when digital technology is used on their course they are more independent in their learning and can fit learning into their life more easily, and 80% agreed that electronic submission of assignments is more convenient. The survey results confirm the high levels of use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) across the HE sector, with many students also accessing VLEs through mobile devices.

11.Evidence of the kind of high-value technology-enhanced activities which really

drive learning was more scare, with only about half of students having used polling devices or online quizzes in class, and fewer than this having used an educational game or simulation, suggesting more could be done in this area.

Teaching quality and value 12.“Contact hours” are often viewed by prospective students and their parents as a

key measure of quality and value – with the consumer organisation Which? even offering a contact hours comparison tool.2 However, as Graham Gibbs identified in ‘Dimensions of Quality’, the number of class contact hours does not independently impact on educational quality.3 One contact hour might be a lecture catering for 400 students, a tutorial with less than three students or a hands-on practical lab session. The quantity of contact hours may be divorced from the engagement a student has with teaching staff, or with the material under discussion.

13.Given the strong body of evidence demonstrating the link between learner engagement and learning outcomes, we believe learner engagement should be seen as a key aspect or indicator of teaching quality. There is a growing body of educational research with demonstrates that active engagement in learning correlates strongly with measures of academic achievement such as grades and retention, and with student satisfaction. This concept, first discussed by

1 http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6662/1/Jiscdigitalstudenttracker2017.pdf 2 http://university.which.co.uk/contact-hours-comparison-tool 3 Graham Gibbs, Dimensions of Quality, 2010, Higher Education Academy 

VAL0034

 

Benjamin Bloom in 1956 has been supported since by many researchers. More recently, technologies such as clickers in lecture theatres and virtual learning environments have made it possible to measure student engagement with learning more accurately, as well as providing potentially more engaging ways to study.

14.Recent studies examining the use of such technologies demonstrate positive correlations between measures of engagement and student success. Meanwhile findings from numerous research projects in the new area of learning analytics show that lack of engagement, shown through, for example, poor attendance on campus or low levels of access to online materials, is strongly related to low achievement.

15.One of the key benefits of effective contact time highlighted by Gibbs is to drive purposeful independent study, so a broader understanding of the ways in which students are supported and challenged to spend time on task and develop and question their knowledge and skills across a course would give a better feel of its overall quality.

16.The focus should not be on more contact hours, but rather 'better contact hours' with genuine engagement between teaching staff and students. In a digital age, this type of rich contact may best happen in face-to-face workshops or seminars, or may be happening online, through email, social media, or facilitated collaborative work and discussion groups.

Recommendation 1: Measures of teaching quality should include indicators of learner engagement, which may in the future be derived from learning analytics records. Recommendation 2: Measures of teaching intensity need to include an understanding of the kinds of activities which drive students’ active engagement in their subject, and need to ensure that activities delivered digitally are not prejudiced through the measures. Recommendation 3: Measures of teaching quality need to be appropriate to online and distance learning, where much of the value is in the extensive preparation of the course activities before the students move through them. 17.UK HE will need to continue to innovate and improve its technology-enhanced

provision to meet student expectations and deliver the rich resources and active and engaging experience that they deserve. Innovation traditionally carries risk in terms of student satisfaction scores, as do courses with high levels of active challenge.

Recommendation 4: The Department for Education (DfE), Office for Students (OfS) and the TEF panel must ensure the TEF does not act as a barrier against institutions innovating with technology-enhanced approaches.

VAL0034

 

Learning analytics 18.In order to deliver value for money, higher education institutions have a

responsibility to support the students they recruit to achieve their best while at university and complete their course. Learning analytics - the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data measuring the progress of learners and the contexts in which learning takes place - can support providers to ensure that students remain engaged and get the best possible outcomes from their studies. This approach can offer staff the opportunity to spot disengaged and underachieving students at the earliest possible opportunity and make a subsequent intervention.

19.Evidence from around the world shows that effective use of insights from learning analytics can be used to achieve statistically significant increases in retention. When learning analytics were employed at Columbus State University College in the US, retention rose by 4.2% (and 5.7% among low-income students.) In Australia, pilot schemes at the University of New England saw drop-out rates fall from 18% to 12%, while in the UK, Open University pilots have resulted in a 2.1% boost in retention.

20.Some universities are also using learning analytics to support students to improve their performance across grade boundaries, for example, moving from an Upper Second to a First-class degree. Drawing on behavioural insights and ‘nudge theory’, these universities are giving students access to learning analytics data on their own engagement and performance to help them understand how to improve.

21.Learning analytics could soon be ubiquitous across the sector – becoming a foundational technology that drives data-driven practice in institutions. At a time when there is greater focus on the efficacy of spending on student success, learning analytics data provide a useful mechanism to check in near-real time whether interventions are working. We also expect, as technology matures, that learning analytics data will provide a basis for the delivery of personalised learning, tailored to the areas where individual students are struggling.

22.Jisc is currently developing a pilot national learning analytics service with twenty universities (and some FE colleges) from across the country. The pilot aims to provide the facility for institutions to closely monitor the engagement of all students, including those from particular groups, prior to assessment results being made available. Learning analytics data might also provide strong evidence of the effectiveness of data-driven interventions aimed at closing gaps in attainment, progression and retention. It also may be possible that student engagement with learning could also be measured using a learning analytics proxy. We are currently exploring this possibility with institutions as part of work to develop institutional learning analytics benchmarking data.

23.We are also currently investing in the development of further types of educational analytics, including teaching quality data, assessment data, and

VAL0034

 

curriculum data which will further enrich the data available to providers to improve teaching and learning. This offers the potential to provide individual lecturers and course teams with the tools they need to derive insights about their teaching and curriculum design, driving both year-on year improvements to course design and delivery, and in-year adaptions to teaching and supporting content in the light of student views, behaviours, and assessment performance, in order to maximise student attainment and satisfaction.

Recommendation 5: Institutions that do not currently have learning analytics in place should give consideration to adopting it at the earliest opportunity. Technology and digital skills as added value in HE 24.It is crucial that lifelong digital skills are integrated into the curriculum to

ensure learners are able to live, work and engage in an ever-increasing digital society and world of work, and feel they are deriving added value from their HE studies. Jisc’s 2017 Student Digital Experience Tracker4 surveyed the views of over 8,000 UK HE learners from across 29 universities. It showed that over 80 per cent of HE learners feel that digital skills will be important in their chosen career, yet only 50 per cent agree that their course prepares them well for the digital workplace. Furthermore, only 40% of HE learners agreed and approximately 30% disagreed that they had been informed about any digital skills they needed to improve.

25.We know that around 90 per cent of all new jobs require good digital skills. This suggests a shortfall in either provision and/or signposting of services to students which support the development of digital skills and capabilities. Addressing this shortfall could go a long way towards driving up students’ perception of the value for money experienced from their studies.

Ensuring the HE workforce is digitally capable 26.Jisc’s own research clearly demonstrates that the best way of developing the

digital skills that students will require in the workforce is through having teachers who are themselves digitally skilled. Our education workforce itself needs to be digital capable and aware of the ever-changing requirements of employers and industry. They also need the skills to design individual activities and courses that make the most of what technology can offer to support teaching, learning, feedback, collaboration, independent research and reflection. It is important, therefore, that institutions recognise their staff need to have a pre-requisite level of digital capability and are supported with ongoing development in order to carry out their job effectively.

27.Providers need to respond by embedding digital capabilities into recruitment, staff development, appraisal, reward and recognition practices. We know from our work with a wide range of stakeholders within universities that staff digital capabilities is a key concern and we are providing a suite of tools and guidance,

4 https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/student‐digital‐experience‐tracker   

VAL0034

 

including our digital capability discovery tool5, to support our members to develop the digital capabilities of their staff.

28.Jisc’s digital capability framework guides educational providers on the key areas of digital skills, knowledge and practices which are required among their workforce and their students. We also have a companion piece on digital employability skills and would be keen to work with employers in line with the recommendation in the government’s digital strategy to develop “a common digital skills language to help industry articulate the digital skills they are seeking in a widely understood way and to provide digital careers information in a way graduates can fully understand”.

Recommendation 6: Higher education institutions should ensure the digital agenda is being led at senior levels – and should embed digital capabilities into recruitment, staff development, appraisal, reward and recognition. Recommendation 7: For government to work with, and facilitate collaboration between, relevant stakeholders to progress development of a shared digital skills language between education and employment. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 29.Improving employment outcomes is a key aspect in perceptions around value

for money in HE. Employers are demanding that students are better prepared for work, though views on what this means in practice vary. A recent Jisc study found that there is wide variation in how institutions are developing student employability.6 Some are focusing on helping students to prepare for and obtain jobs as an end-of-programme activity (typically via careers departments). Others are treating employability as integral to curriculum design, delivery and formative/ summative assessment beginning at the start of a programme, all with a view to students taking ownership of their ’lifelong employability’.

Data-informed curriculum planning 30.Universities can derive significant value for all stakeholders from data-informed

curriculum planning, supporting better employability and further study outcomes for their students, a better fit of their graduates for the employment needs of the UK economy, and increased recruitment onto their courses. For example, teams of institutions on the Jisc-HESA Analytics Lab initiative7 have brought different datasets together for planning purposes to link up provision with workforce and professional demand, highlighting areas in which HE courses will need to be adapted or created to meet future workforce needs, and flagging up areas where local or regional postgraduate provision is not well articulated with undergraduate courses to meet the need of professions.

55 http://ji.sc/building-digicap 6 http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6249/3/Technology_for_employability_-_full_report.PDF 7 https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/business-intelligence-project 

VAL0034

 

31.Government could make a number of interventions to help support providers to

take a data driven approach to curriculum planning. For example, Department for Education data collections are often presented in a way to ease on-screen display (aggregation for example, and composite table headings), rather than for interrogation by data manipulation. This means anyone wishing to utilise the data has to spend time and effort reshaping it to be compatible for use with analytic tools.

32.Elsewhere, to help providers make more informed decisions, it would be beneficial if data collected on employer demand, and especially unmet demand, could be linked more readily to both sectors and occupations at a regional level. At present, data on employment and employer demand is fragmented and lacks granularity. The employer vacancy survey, for example, is focused at a high level and the data is not broken down across geography. Likewise, graduate employment data covers supply but not demand and employment datasets are provided either by sector, but not occupation - or vice-versa.

33.Longitudinal Educational Outcome (LEO) data is a good example of how useful it can be to combine data across departments, and this should be expanded. For example, it’s not currently possible to identify the sources of the apprenticeship levy, and therefore likely demand for new apprenticeships, as the relevant data is based on company payrolls and only held by Revenue & Customs. Combining this data with other datasets held by government could give providers invaluable insights to help them plan accordingly.

Recommendation 8: Higher education institutions should use data-informed curriculum planning where feasible to help ensure that all students derive the best value from their HE studies by being able to progress into postgraduate education or appropriate employment. Recommendation 9: Government should support providers in taking a data driven approach to curriculum planning by bringing together relevant data from across departments and structuring datasets in a way that facilitates interrogation by data manipulation for business intelligence insights. Social justice and support for disadvantaged students 34.Higher education institutions have a responsibility to widen participation from

under-represented groups and, crucially, to support those students to achieve their best while at university and in their search for employment. Differential outcomes remain a concern across the HE sector.

35.Given the evidence suggests that students from some under-represented groups are more likely to achieve lower outcomes8 and drop out of their

8 Differences in degree outcomes: Key findings, Hefce, 2014 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201403/

VAL0034

 

studies9, we believe there should be a renewed focus on retention and tackling differential outcomes across the HE sector. Technology, in particular learning analytics, could have a big part to play in supporting non-traditional students to ensure that they receive value from their HE experience.

36.Evidence from the United States suggests that, while learning analytics benefits all students, a higher percentage increase in retention is seen for students from low-income backgrounds. Building on this finding, some universities, supported by Jisc, are now using analytics to identify and attempt to provide additional support to individuals from underperforming groups. The University of Derby, for example, has used analytics to ensure that its decision making on supporting black and minority ethnic (BME) students was evidence-based – developing a guide of interventions for academic staff which appeared to have improved the performance of BME students. By identifying indicators of engagement at an early stage, analytics may enable institutions to intervene earlier with support than is currently possible.

Recommendation 10: Institutions should use learning analytics to help provide support for disadvantaged students, investigate the factors contributing to differential outcomes, and monitor the success of resulting interventions. The role of the Office for Students 37.The Higher Education and Research Act (2017) noted that the Office for

Students (OfS) may assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the quality of, and the standards applied to, higher education provided by English higher education providers.

38.The OfS should ensure that it supports and encourages innovation around learning, teaching and student experience and helps tackle what PA Consulting has identified as a “lack of incentives for innovation” in the sector.10 In short, the regulatory framework should not have the effect of ‘freezing’ current practice by increasing risk-adversity among university leaders.

9 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rise-uk-university-dropout-rate-disappointing 10 http://www.paconsulting.com/newsroom/expert-opinion/the-guardian-the-uks-outmoded-universities-must-modernise-or-risk-falling-far-behind-29-june-2015/ 

VAL0001  

Written evidence submitted by John Ogden 1. This is from me in a personal capacity

2. Although it is in a personal capacity I have academic teaching qualification,

and teach part time via a corporate university. 3. Summary – I do not think my course offered VFM, and make suggestions on

what I would like to see for any course to offer VFM. This is based on personal observation rather than hard research. I am happy for any of this to be ignored where hard research contradicts it, and would encourage more research into this subject.

4. I do not think my course was value for money. I got a good job at the end of it, but I do not think there is much correlation between the course and that job or what I have achieved since.

5. Over the three years, I had about 15 hours of contact with the University for two ten week terms, then depending on exam schedule about 10 hours per week for a 5 week term. This is much less than I would expect for the money. Especially given a lot of that contact was crammed into a single 8am- 6pm day, which completely overloaded any ability to take in information.

6. Outside that contact there was a range of self-study, the volume of which

was highly variable, and if one were to do what was described, you would have to self-study well over 80 hours a week, which is again unsustainable.

7. For any course to be value for money, it has to be effective, regardless of

subject matter. Therefore the course must be well structured and sustainable. This must involve capping total study time at around the 50 hours a week point, and setting a minimum amount of contact time.

8. The course also has to have a value add. I would much rather universities dropped all lectures. I can watch those for free via YouTube or similar – this route also allows me to rewind, review, repeat as needed, which I cannot do in a lecture. I expect the university to focus on face to face value-add via tutorials, seminars, workshops (etc.) all of which I cannot easily access online.

9. Based on the above, I would like to see a maximum of 5 hours a week sit-in

lecture and a minimum of 20 hours a week of f2f contact in workshops (etc).

10.Sustainability should include means of remote and self-paced study. Given skype, workshops could be virtual / online. Learning how to operate in such systems is critical for successful professional life where we are often working with people on other continents.

11.I did not like my course’s focus on buying expensive text books. Each 10

week module had a new £30+ textbook. This felt worse for those books authored by my professor, and even more so for the low quality ones where

VAL0001  

we were acting as editors and reviewers of poor quality text – this is just money making not VFM.

12.I expect the university to teach industry standard content, not the professor’s niche skills. I have seen this too many times, and learning skills industry does not use, especially where there are global standards can never be VFM.

13.My course jumped directly into teaching the syllabus. There was very little

“learning how to learn” – I would suggest to be VFM, a course should have significant content around how to learn effectively in general, and in how to learn the subject at hand.

14.There was very little content around basic business skills – e.g. how to write a report, how to give a presentation. I would see these as critical skills everyone should gain at a university, and must be included in any VFM course.

September 2017

VAL0048

Written Evidence submitted by Prof David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor, with assistance from Mike Simmons and

Patrick Christie on behalf of London South Bank University (LSBU)

1. There are inherent problems with measuring Value for Money in Higher Education as this will mean different things to different groups e.g. students, individual tax payers and businesses. There is much evidence though that a Higher Education provides a good return on investment for students. Research from the Department for Research Innovation and Skills calculates a degree is worth on average £168,000 for men and £252,000 for women, when compared to comparable non-graduates over a lifetime of earnings. Separate analysis by Green and Henseke suggests the wage premium for graduates relative to matched non-graduates has increased over the past couple of decades from 89 per cent to 104 per cent.

2. The level of the premium can vary and there are a range of factors that can influence earnings, for example family background. Universities can impact on these factors. For example LSBU has a highly diverse student population. 97 per cent come from state schools, 70 per cent are mature learners and 46 per cent are first in their family to attend university. And yet we have some of the best graduate outcomes in the country - 82 per cent of our first-degree, full time students are in highly-skilled employment or further study within six months of graduating. LSBU is now in the top 25 UK universities for graduate employment and top 12 for graduate starting salaries and we are University of the Year for Graduate Employment in the Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide 2018. LEO data demonstrates that in six different subject areas London South Bank University produces graduates that earn more at the median than average despite admitting those with the lowest grades. LSBU was ranked 32nd in the Economist’s Value Added league table ahead of many internationally renowned UK universities

3. When looking at added-value its important to realise that in the case of universities it is the full university environment that can have significant impact, not solely what happens in the classroom. At LSBU our year on year improvements in graduate employment have coincided with the implementation of an educational framework that emphasises the importance of extracurricular activities and which ensures the currency of our courses via employer input. This has been supported by significant investment in relevant support services. When debating higher education there is not enough focus given to the impact of this wider environment and there is clearly a case that

VAL0048

students who attend institutions such as LSBU receive better Value for Money through the added-value they receive.

4. The Government is attempting to measure the quality and effectiveness of

teaching (TEF), however, further forthcoming changes put increasing emphasis on graduate outcomes over what takes place in the class room. In the absence of a genuine measure of learning gain the most appropriate way to determine the value for money for a student is through the measurement of the ‘added value’ that a degree provides them, such as the measure produced by the Economist.

5. The Higher Education Policy Unit and Higher Education Academy student

experience study in 2017 shows only a minority (35 per cent) of respondents believed their experience represented “good” or “very good” value for money. But the value of this research is thrown into question by the fact that in Scotland only just over half (56 per cent) of respondents said that their degree constituted good value for money despite Scottish students paying no tuition fees.

6. The current system does provide good value for money for students as it sees each student receive a £9,250 investment in their education for each year of their degree and in the majority of cases they will not be required to pay most of it back. Whilst some students will pay back more than the amount borrowed, these will be the graduates who have earned most. Graduates not earning more than £25k p.a. are never required to pay back their loan.

7. There are however challenges in the way maintenance grants have been

converted to loans which means that students from poorer backgrounds, whilst having the opportunity to borrow more, but graduate with the greatest debt. There is a strong argument for looking at introducing a means tested maintenance grant with a “core plus” model through which all students can access a core grant with an additional element being means tested. This would address one of the main areas of concerns for students and significantly increase the value to them.

8. What is sometimes forgotten in discussions about H.E. funding is the significant competition for students amongst universities and other institutions. Students have a choice between H.E. courses in F.E. colleges, private H.E. providers, studying locally and avoiding some of the living costs, or living away from home. This has led to significant investment in support by universities – for example 24/7 library access. To achieve this in a fixed funding envelope universities have made significant savings to accommodate these new costs. Until this year there had been no increase in tuition fees but, for example, changes to pension rules have added significant costs to staffing. HEIs have

VAL0048

also absorbed additional costs transferred to the sector such as those related to aspects of disability support.

9. There is also consideration of whether the current system provides value for money for the taxpayer. In the case of the full loan re-payer, the state receives excellent value for money as it makes a profit on the money it has loaned. In the case of the average student, the IFS currently estimates the RAB charge to be 31.3 per cent. (Of course, a proportion of those who do not pay off their student debt are nurses, police officers, teachers and other public sector workers for whom the return on their education is as worthwhile to the state as it is to the individual.) However, arguably, the Government is not just subsidising the ability for individuals to enhance their income and job opportunities. There are also societal benefits from tertiary education. Research has shown that participation in higher education contributes to improving social cohesion, mobility and capital as well as political stability and general health of the populace, in addition to increasing tax revenues. The government invested in establishing higher education provision in disadvantaged areas where it was absent – Worcester, East Anglia, Gloucestershire etc. which suggests that there is a belief that HEIs are a positive asset to communities.

10.In the VFM debate, there is also a question about whether the individual (through their £9,250 fees) or the state (through the RAB charge) funds the wider civic, social and community benefits of the work of universities such as sponsoring local schools. Specifically and as part of HE regulations there is the cost of running widening participation programmes to which universities commit between 5-10 per cent of tuition fees. This is achieved across the sector according to different missions. For example, at LSBU, in addition to the work of the University, we sponsor and actively lead a new academy and a technical college. Both of which were launched by the University in areas of deprivation. Through applying the same educational framework as the University we have achieved strong pupil outcomes and an Ofsted rating of ‘Good’.

11.In terms of employers, the system demonstrably provides good value for money. Whilst often not contributing directly, employers benefit from a highly skilled workforce which is increasingly in demand. Research from the UK Commission on Employment Skills (UKCES) suggests there will be 7.8 million additional high-skilled jobs between 2012-2022. Indeed there is a question as to whether there is opportunity for greater engagement and support from industry through initiatives such as the apprenticeship levy.

12.Part-Time: However, one set of students that clearly do not feel that they are receiving value for money under the current funding system are part-time students. Between 2010 and 2016 the number of students in England engaged

VAL0048

in part-time undergraduate study in higher education has collapsed, dropping by 60 per cent. This decline has been accelerated by the introduction of £9,000 tuition fees in 2012. This also included a requirement for part-time students to commit upfront to studying for a whole degree if they wished to be eligible for a loan and to begin repayments from four years after the start of their course. This has been particularly significant because mature students (which make up a large proportion of part-time learners) often already have family and financial commitments which can make them unwilling or unable to take on significant extra debt.

13.This decline is harmful to social justice and progression of disadvantaged students in higher education. It has led to 13,760 fewer Widening Participation students attending higher education institutions – this equates to 1 in 5 WP students. Despite claims to the contrary the total number of students from deprived areas is going down, not up. The figures for English undergraduate entrants from these areas fell by 15 per cent in the four years to 2015/16. This was driven by a 47 per cent fall in entrants studying part-time, which outweighed the 7 per cent increase in entrants from these areas studying full-time.

14.Given the substantial contribution to improving the UK’s social mobility and the failure of the current funding model to support it we would argue that part-time should qualify for some form of direct financial support from the government. Arguably, by investing more in part-time education to improve value for money for part time students, the taxpayer would also see better value for money as part-time students on average pay back a higher proportion of their loan and are more likely to be tax payers themselves during their period of study.

15.Other interim measures which could help improve value for money for students are:

a. Delaying the repayment of student loans for part-time learners until after graduation. This will potentially allow them to benefit from the increased earning associated with upskilling. This would make would help make the loans more attractive to prospective students.

b. Widening the Apprenticeship Levy into a skills levy to enable businesses to support their employees in undertaking university-level study

c. Given the relatively low take up of STEM ELQ courses, the relaxations could be expanded to allow graduates to undertake Law, Economics or Management (LEM) courses at equivalent or lower levels.

October 2017

VAL0023

Written Evidence submitted by Middlesex University Summary of recommendations

1. Graduate outcome and destination data should incorporate measures of ‘distance travelled’.

2. Graduate outcomes, social justice and support for disadvantaged students would all benefit from much less variation in academic selection, creating more diverse student bodies in all higher education institutions.

3. The quality and effectiveness of teaching would be improved by teaching classes that have a greater diversity of abilities and identities.

4. The Office for Students should replace access benchmarks with diversity quotas, and current access spending should be replaced with a levy designed to reduce the extent of social class stratification across institutions.

5. A study and consultation should be undertaken into how higher education institutions can diversify their student bodies using admissions quotas, levies or other means to create a wider range of ability and backgrounds, especially in those institutions that are currently most and least selective.

6. A consultation should be undertaken into how the current system of academic credit could be replaced with a system of competency-based learning and assessment that creates a common framework for higher level learning and skills development.

7. Policy should avoid creating divisions between higher, further, technical and vocational education and apprenticeships, presenting all of these within an overall skills framework that recognises and supports progression within and across pathways, as well as changes in direction as learners’ circumstances and objectives change.

Introduction 1. Middlesex University strives to ensure that everyone with the potential to benefit can access higher education, and that higher education demonstrates its value by driving productivity growth and social mobility. This submission sets out a case for major reform in how our higher education system works in order to reduce the social stratification of the sector and provide better value for money.

VAL0023

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 2. Much of the debate about value for money in higher education has focused on graduate outcomes, especially the graduate wage premium and variations in this premium across institutions and subjects. These measures are often difficult to interpret and can appear worse for institutions that recruit larger numbers of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. This is both because these students have further to travel at university and because there is evidence that some employers discriminate against these institutions when hiring graduates, especially in the ‘elite professions’1. 3. The social class intake of students to the UK’s universities varies hugely. This is both educationally and socially damaging. Taking social classes 4 to 7 (the children of semi-routine and routine workers) these classes account for only 10 per cent of Oxford and Cambridge’s intakes but almost 60 per cent of Bradford’s intake, with a wide range in between2. This creates a very different teaching challenge across universities because of the way that social class is such a determinant of school examination grades3. 4. Contrary to occasional media stories that too many young people from less privileged backgrounds attend university only to fail, the vast majority succeed with their degrees. Universities are getting better at identifying those who are unlikely to succeed, or who need additional help to succeed, but it can still difficult to identify such students. There is a serious risk of injustice for the many who can, and do, succeed if academic selection or concerns about debt deny opportunity. This is especially the case given that the relative earnings benefit for graduates compared to non-graduates for those from poorer families is about double that for graduates from richer families, so any reduction in university places is likely to worsen the sector’s social mobility performance4. 5. There is a great danger that outcome measures fail to capture the reality of students’ and graduates’ lives. This can be illustrated by contrasting two cases. Case ‘A’ is a young black woman brought up on a social housing estate by a single parent who works as a cleaner, who makes it to her local university and graduates with a foundation degree to a job as a health care assistant. She later tops up to an honours degree, qualifying as a registered nurse paid £25,000 after a few years. Case ‘B’ is a young white man brought up in an affluent

                                                            1 Ashley, L. et al. (2015) A qualitative evaluation of non-educational barriers to the elite professions, London: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission 2 Blackman, T. (2017) The Comprehensive University, Oxford: HEPI. 3 Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Micklewright, J. and Vignoles, A. (2017) Family Background and University Success, Oxford: OUP. 4 Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Micklewright, J. and Vignoles, A. (2017) Family Background and University Success, Oxford: OUP. 

VAL0023

suburb with two parents, both doctors, who graduates with a medical degree and within a few years is earning £80,000 a year as a GP. Case ‘A’ may appear in the statistics as less of a success than Case ‘B’, but the journey travelled by the young black woman is considerably further. These are two extremes but the point is that the journeys travelled vary considerably. 6. In the United States, a measure known as the social mobility index calculates the difference between the income level of a student’s family on entering college and the income achieved after graduation. This produces a very different ranking of institutions compared to other rankings that tend to be dominated by measures that correlate strongly with how academically selective the institution is. In fact, the dominance of academic selection in public and media discourse about what constitutes a ‘good’ university – the more selective a university, the better it is perceived to be – has negative effects on all the issues identified as concerns by the Committee. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 7. Graduate outcomes are not just determined by how well a student does on their degree course, or the course itself, but are also significantly associated with attending an independent rather than a comprehensive school, having parents who are senior managers or professionals, and attending Oxford or another ‘Golden triangle’ university (best), another Russell Group university (second best) or any other university (third best and better than none)5. Independent schooling appears to be a particular advantage for future career success, despite pupils from independent and selective state schools doing significantly less well at university than students from comprehensive schools with the same school subjects and grades6. 8. Arguably, the major injustice faced by disadvantaged students in higher education is that they are denied places in the highly selective universities that are widely regarded as the ‘best’ universities (and recruit disproportionately from independent schools). A few ‘bright working class kids’ are recruited to these institutions through various access schemes but this is small scale. The reason for being denied places is that high ‘A’ level grades are concentrated among students from socially and economically advantaged backgrounds, and it is these students who are overwhelmingly selected by the ‘best’ universities. Furthermore, these socially advantaged students are often actively discouraged by their schools from attending universities that require lower entry grades but where they would mix with students from different backgrounds and be likely to                                                             5 Savage, M. (2015) Social Class in the 21st Century, London: Penguin 6 Crawford, C. (2014) The link between secondary school characteristics and university participation and outcomes, London: Department for Education. 

VAL0023

succeed just as well. The overall effect is a socially graded higher education system. Quality and effectiveness of teaching 10. Unlike most schools, universities can use academic selection for all applicants. Academic selection is rare in British secondary education. Where it exists, there is evidence that selection reduces the average attainment of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and that high-attaining pupils do no better attending a grammar school than a good comprehensive school7. In fact, the vast majority of our good schools – as measured by value-added progress measures – are comprehensives. There is also no evidence from these schools that a basic matriculation requirement for progressing to sixth forms dampens aspiration to achieve well, rather than the kind of selective entry requirements we see across universities - often well beyond what is needed to succeed on a course. 11. A very important reason for the success of good comprehensive schools is that they do not have a selective school nearby ‘creaming off’ top achievers. This raises average achievement in these schools, including the effect of the presence of higher achieving pupils raising other pupils’ achievement. 12. In higher education, the most selective institutions have a similar creaming off effect, almost certainly with the same consequences. This is not necessarily to argue that all universities should be comprehensive and open entry like The Open University, but there is a strong argument that the high entry requirements demanded by some universities have little educational rationale and could be lowered to create a mix of abilities and backgrounds among their student bodies that would be educationally and socially beneficial to everyone. Above all, it would focus universities on what research evidence from school studies demonstrates, that it is teacher expertise which is the main single factor that determines student outcomes8. 13. Expert teachers also make use of the variation in abilities and backgrounds that diverse classes present, such as using peer-to-peer learning methods. At Middlesex, we hire high-achieving third year students to work with our lecturers as part-time learning assistants in first year classes to support students who need some extra help learning a topic. This has proved very successful, improving attainment. However, the benefits of diversity in the classroom go far beyond this.

                                                            7 Andrews, J., Hutchinson, J. and Johnes, R. (2016) Grammar schools and social mobility, London: Education Policy Institute. 8 Hattie, J. (2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, London: Routledge. 

VAL0023

14. Recent research has demonstrated how diverse groups can be more successful at solving complex problems than homogenous groups, because a diversity of ethnic, class and gender backgrounds means more ways of seeing and understanding problems and solutions are explored9. In the business world, McKinsey reports that companies which combine identity diversity with the acquired diversity of skills and experience have a 45 per cent greater market share10. School and college studies from the United States demonstrate positive benefits from students being exposed to peers from different backgrounds, including problem-solving, satisfaction, motivation, general knowledge and self-confidence11. Other benefits include reducing prejudice, enhancing critical thinking and increasing civic engagement. 15. We should be creating more fertile learning environments by all universities increasing the diversity of their student bodies rather than separating students by ability into universities with different levels of academic selection as we do at present. This would have educational and social benefits, and save money on access schemes that have little effect because of how admission is dominated by academic selection. The role of the Office for Students 16. Current higher education policy has a focus on access when it should have a focus on diversity. The Office for Fair Access (OFFA; to become part of the OfS from April 2018) currently requires institutions charging above the £6,165 annual ‘basic fee’ to use part of their additional fee income to fund measures to widen access among under-represented groups. The current access spend by Russell Group universities is around £250m annually, with very limited effects12. It would be far cheaper – in fact it could cost nothing – for these universities to lower their entry requirements and achieve a much bigger effect. 17. At present, every university has a benchmark for recruiting students from under-represented groups. A different approach to regulation would be to require every university to operate entry quotas that create opportunities for students with a range of prior attainment. Some American high schools commit to fixed proportions of their student bodies being in top, middle and low bands on standardised tests13. In England some generally non-selective state-funded

                                                            9 Page, S. (2008) The Difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10 All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility (2017) The class ceiling: increasing access to the leading professions, London: APPG and The Sutton Trust. 11 Wells, A. S., Fox, L. and Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016) How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms can Benefit All Students, New York: The Century Foundation. 12 Boliver, V. (2015) ‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics on widening access to Russell Group universities’, Radical Statistics, 113: 29-38, 13 Warikoo, N. (2016) The Diversity Bargain, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

VAL0023

secondary schools are allowed to select a proportion of their intake by ability. In general, school precedents such as quotas, lotteries, catchment areas and feeder schools present possibilities for how a policy of creating more diversity in our universities could be achieved. 18. Diversity is not just an issue for very selective universities. Less selective universities should attract more students from less disadvantaged backgrounds and with higher prior attainment to improve their diversity and graduate outcomes. Although a lot of prestige is associated with highly selective universities, there are no systematic differences across universities in teaching quality or the likelihood of completing or obtaining a good degree classification once student background is taken into account14. However, the prestige effect is a real one in attracting high achieving applicants and polarising the sector. 19. A policy of diversification across the sector would need either to use student number controls to prevent initially more prestigious universities growing at the expense of less prestigious ones if they operated quotas accepting lower grades, or there would need to be a financial incentive. The latter could be a levy on the more selective universities that replaces their current £250m access spend (so is cost neutral) but is redistributed to less selective universities to support their recruitment of applicants with higher prior attainment. The levy would gradually reduce as the highly selective universities become less selective for a proportion of their intake and the less selective universities increase their intake of applicants with higher prior attainment. All institutions would be required to agree the size of their lower grade entry quotas (for highly selective institutions) and higher grade entry quotas (for less selective institutions) as part of their annual Access/Diversity Agreements with the OfS, with these scaled to drive a continuing increase in diversity until a more socially balanced sector is achieved. 20. Reform should also aim to break down the distinction between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ education. Just as diversity is as much about finding common ground as it is in valuing difference, there is a need to have one educational currency while recognising different pathways. Academic credit works poorly as a currency in this respect (a degree course is currently 360 credits or 3,600 learning hours) but competencies do translate into both academic and vocational study, as well as apprenticeship standards. 21. Part of our vision at Middlesex as a university for skills is our close collaboration with schools, further education colleges and employers, including

                                                            14 Boliver, V. (2015) ‘Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK?’, Oxford Review of Education, 41 (5), pp. 608-627.

VAL0023

‘pathway neutral’ information, advice and guidance for school and college students. This guides students onto the right course for them but recognises that learners change circumstances and sometimes change their minds, so builds in opportunities to move between pathways. It also creates aspiration by all pathways leading to graduate career opportunities, even if many learners choose to enter the workforce at an earlier stage (perhaps returning to study later on, which is increasingly necessary). We are also focusing our curriculum and teaching on developing graduates with the skills to innovate and improve, adding value especially during the early stages of their careers, which can count even more than their qualifications towards subsequent career progression. 22. We need students at all levels learning by doing and demonstrating how they can innovate and make improvements, including bringing the power of diversify to workplaces. The idea of academic credit is increasingly anachronistic. Instead, a common framework of competency-based learning and assessment across technical and academic education, including apprenticeships, would focus students’ learning on showing and not just telling, making and not just learning, and working with and among diversity, complementing the policy of greater diversity in all institutions proposed in this submission. Conclusion 23. The UK today is a society where our education system has created a deep stratification between graduates and non-graduates and, among graduates, between prestigious and less prestigious universities. Everyone would benefit from replacing a stratified and separated higher education system with mixed-tariff institutions that are part of a wider skills ecosystem, and where the diversity of abilities and identities would be a resource for everyone’s learning. October 2017

VAL0058

WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY MILLIONPLUS

1. MillionPlus is the Association for Modern Universities in the UK, and the voice of 21st century higher education. We champion, promote and raise awareness of the essential role played by modern universities in a world-leading university system. Modern universities make up 53% of all UK undergraduates, and 38% of all postgraduates, with over one million students studying at modern institutions across the UK.

GRADUATE OUTCOMES AND THE USE OF DESTINATION DATA

2. UK universities have strong graduate outcomes. Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) show that 91% of graduates were in work or further study six months after graduation1 and over 93% of graduates were in work or further study 3.5 years after graduation.2 Modern universities work closely with employers to design degrees and courses that meet their skills needs and offer students the opportunity to enhance their employability to ensure that they are successful upon graduation.

3. Graduate destinations are complex. People take different decisions about

career paths and further study patterns for a variety of reasons, and it is difficult to fully represent these diverse outcomes. The collection of data only six months after graduation is too soon to allow students to have a meaningful opportunity to progress with their career aims, whether that be through personal decisions or a competitive employment market. For example, graduates seeking to develop their own business or a creative portfolio as part of a self-employed/freelance career were not well represented in the DLHE survey. This significantly underplays the success of these graduates, and by implication the universities they attended.

4. The changes HESA is making to the collection of destinations data, in its

new Graduate Outcomes survey3 will seek to address some of these issues. It will collect information 15 months after graduation and introduce new questions to ensure that non-traditional career paths (such as setting up a business, or creating a portfolio for self-employment) are properly recognised.

5. The definition of graduate jobs is out of date and does not take account of

modern work patterns, career trajectories and employer decision-making. An arbitrary line drawn across the standard occupational classifications list tends not to recognise several features of either today’s higher education system or the nature of the economy. With far more diverse provision within the sector, particularly in modern universities, and increased employer sponsorship and development of courses, it is difficult to match every degree and course offering to a specific job title.

1 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/destinations 2 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/long-destinations-2012-13 3 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/destinations  

VAL0058

6. The use of the current Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) groups, and general approach to defining ‘graduate jobs’ creates misperceptions about graduate success. Employers makes decisions about what attributes are necessary for the jobs in their businesses, and it is they who decide that a role is a ‘graduate job’. Equally, graduates decide whether a role is suitable for their career path. The ONS’s review of SOC in July 2016 acknowledged that there were issues to be addressed but it remains the case that occupations not currently classified as graduate level are increasingly graduate occupations.

7. However, perhaps just as important is the fact that those with a higher

education qualification are known to be more resilient in the labour market and are better-placed to adapt and respond to changes in technology and new and emerging jobs and markets. Developing flexibility and resilience is therefore a vital component of a future skills strategy, as many jobs in the future are not those that exist today.

Linking outcomes to fees

8. It would damage higher education if a variable tuition fee system was introduced based on either Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) ratings or graduate earnings. All UK higher education is quality assured (and deemed to be excellent), and the TEF would be a blunt instrument on which to base a system of fee differentiation (and ultimately reduce the unit of student resource).

9. Graduate earnings reflect returns to the individual rather than returns on

qualification. Very high salaries are often an indication of social capital acquired by an individual (in many cases, prior to them attending university), rather than being specifically influenced by a degree or university. Graduate earnings, as indicated by the longitudinal educational outcomes data, will be lower for those working in public sector roles vital for society, or those working outside of London and the south-east. These are factors not in the control of a specific university. In any case, graduates who choose to study, live and work in regions which have historically experienced lower growth will add to the economic vibrancy and intergenerational capacity within those regions.

10. Similarly, some data suggest lower average earnings for women (due to

decisions to balance work responsibilities with caring responsibilities) and for people from Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic backgrounds. These are societal issues but also reflect employer recruitment and reward practices over which individual universities have no specific control.

11. Salaries earned by graduates after completing a degree are based on a variety of factors and decisions: job sector; region; prior attainment; existing social networks; choices about life and career paths. The more ‘distance’ a graduate has from their university of study, the less influence the latter has on their salary.

12. Basing university tuition fees on graduate earnings would risk lowering the amount of funding universities have to invest in students from a variety of

VAL0058

backgrounds. This could lead towards a less socially inclusive student population.

Institutional Funding Regimes

13. A review of annual grant letters from the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) illustrates the instability in funding for teaching as compared to research for the 2010/11 – 2017/18 period (Appendices A and B). The analysis does not account for the removal of Aim Higher funding in 2011 which at the time of its abolition was worth £78m per annum.

14. Nor does it account for the savings which the government made as a result of adjusting and reducing individuals’ eligibility for disabled student’s allowance, the net result of which was to largely transfer the responsibility to fund reasonable adjustments to universities. We would draw the Committee’s attention to the following:

a) The reduction in teaching capital was/is significant

b) The funding system for teaching is marked by instability in comparison to research;

c) The relative stability around research provides an obvious advantage to those universities which are in receipt of more of this funding (both revenue and capital);

d) The stability around research capital benefits students as well as researchers e.g. new labs, research facilities are rarely only used by staff (nor should they be);

e) After the period of teach-out during which the 2012 system sits alongside the pre-2012 (lower) fees and teaching grant system, the residual direct teaching grant that remains (£652m) relates largely to high cost subjects. This tends to benefit one part of the sector - or at least those universities which are historically more engaged in STEM.

15. Universities which are more reliant on income from teaching have been required to manage a more volatile funding system (compounded by changes in student number controls). Fee, WP and university income is therefore deployed to cover, a wide range of activities, including: teaching costs (which are rising); improving the student experience and innovation in course design and delivery; inflationary pressures;, borrowing requirements in respect of estate and other investment (e.g. new student record systems, improvements in ITT); extended hours including 24 hour opening of libraries and learning resource centres; outreach and student success; welfare and hardship funding; compliance with QAA; and other regulatory and professional body requirements (soon to be extended to payments to OfS) .

16. It is also perhaps worth noting that under the 2012 regime, universities only receive SLC payments twice a year. If the student leaves the course late in the academic year (often for perfectly sensible reasons), universities have to cover a much higher proportion of the teaching costs than previously.

VAL0058

17. During this period the sector has also been required to manage fluctuations in the international market, teacher education and more recently the funding of professional healthcare students.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

18. Modern universities continue to play leading roles in delivering opportunities to students from a wide range of backgrounds. These universities make up 49% of the sector in England and educate 1.07 million students per annum on a wide range of programmes, from undergraduate provision to PhDs. 68% of the students who study at modern universities are from areas with lower levels of HE participation. 66% of all black students, 50% of all Asian students and 50% of all students from mixed and other ethnicities who study for a higher education qualification do so at a modern university.

19. HESA enrolment data for undergraduate and postgraduate students in 15/16 confirms that there were 13,415 black students at Russell group universities. The combined total of black students at just four London universities - the University of East London (UEL), London South Bank University (LSBU), Middlesex and London Metropolitan was 15,615 - considerably more black students than all the 24 Russell Group institutions combined.

20. There are two important points to make about funding regimes and social justice. First, it is widely accepted that schools working in challenging circumstances, with large cohorts of students from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g. speakers of English as an additional language, students on education health and care plans, student from lower income families), require additional investment and support to help them to be successful and progress to the next stage of their education. The progress made by schools in London and the pupil premium policy are both testament to this. The latter has achieved significant improvements in educational progress and student attainment. It seems illogical to suggest this approach should not apply to further and higher education.

21. Second, there is a strong case for equity in funding per higher education student. It is the right of every higher education student to have the same level of resource invested in their educational experiences. Any policy that introduces a differential fee decided by government (rather than by an independent, autonomous decision by a university) will introduce inequality into the system and imply that some students are less worthy of investment than others. If the consequence of an approach like this is that students from under-represented groups or disadvantaged backgrounds are those that receive lower levels of investment, then the government’s attempts to improve social justice will be undermined.

22. It is vital that all universities are properly funded to deliver high quality higher education for students wherever they study. Any reduction in the maximum tuition fee level would mean universities having less funding available to invest in high quality teaching and facilities for students i.e. the unit of resource would be significantly reduced. However, this could be avoided if direct grant to universities was restored to make up the

VAL0058

difference. This would enable the government to reduce the headline tuition fee payable by university students while also being able to maintain investment in higher education. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in its latest review of education confirms that investment in higher education delivers significant benefits to individuals and the economy.4

23. Universities that wish to charge above the lower fee cap of £6,165 (from 1 September 2017) are required to sign an Access Agreement with the Office of Fair Access. These agreements require universities to invest some of their tuition fee income to deliver improvements in participation, retention and outreach work with schools and colleges.

24. While these agreements were required prior to 2012, funding for initiatives to improve participation was previously also supported by government. For example, prior to its abolition the Aim Higher programme funded a wide range of collaborative partnerships to support access and participation in further as well as higher education. Similarly, Student Opportunity Funding (SOF) administered via the Higher Education Funding Council for England and worth £380m in 2015/16, provided additional resource – particularly for those universities with the most socially inclusive student profiles. This funding stream has been reduced and refocused.5

25. The funding scenario has made more complex by changes to student numbers and by amendments to student number controls and then by the complete deregulation of student numbers from the 2015/16 academic year. Overall undergraduate teaching numbers fell by 6.89% in 2012, resulting in a cut in institutional income for all three/four years during which the 2012/13 cohort would have studied.

26. Subsequent fluctuations in demand include a 28% downturn in the participation of part-time students and a 19% drop in mature students in England (21 years and over) from 2011/12 to 2015/16 - declines which show no sign of abating. This has impacted adversely on those, mainly modern, universities which have historically recruited a more inclusive student cohort by mode of study and age, and on individuals already in, or hoping to return to, the workforce with new skills and career options. The significant increase in tuition fees after 2012 is also a potential disincentive for small employers who might otherwise have supported employee part-time study via tuition fee contributions or sponsored bespoke courses.

27. Since 2015 further changes to the student support regime have increased the loans and the costs of higher education for students, from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the Summer Budget of July 2015, George Osborne, then still Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to student maintenance grants for full-time students as being ‘unaffordable’ and

4 http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/benefits-of-university-education-remain-high-but-vary-widely-across-fields-of-study.htm 5 HEFCE now allocates funding to improve retention and outcomes for students at risk of withdrawal and separate funding for disabled students. This totalled £307m in 2017/18. Funding of £60m for collaborative outreach was also allocated. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/funding/annallocns/1718/lt/  

VAL0058

announced that they would be replaced by maintenance loans from the 2016-17 academic year. This change affected nearly half the new undergraduate student population in England from 2016-17. Prior to this change, full-time students who progressed to higher education from families with an annual income of £25,000 or less were eligible for the full grant of £3,387 while students from households with an annual income of between £25,000 and £42,620 were eligible for a means-tested partial grant, which tapered in amount depending on household income.

28. The new maintenance loan increased the total amounts which students from low-income households could borrow to £8,200 for those living away from home (or £10,702 in London). As a minimum, the abolition of maintenance grants has increased debt on graduation from a three-year course by an extra £13,500 (before interest) if full entitlement to maintenance loans is taken up. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated that students from the poorest 30% of households will repay an average of around £3,000 more overall (2016 prices) because of the switch from grants to loans.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

29. The UK’s higher education sector is a global leader but its strength is in its diversity. It is therefore vitally important that all UK universities and their students/graduates are supported and championed. Basing notions of ‘excellence’ on past-measures of success will only ever provide one part of the full picture of what is currently being delivered by UK higher education. Meeting the needs of the future jobs market will require more innovation, greater diversity, and a willingness to challenge orthodoxies to break new ground. All universities should be empowered to do this.

Apprenticeships

30. Modern universities have long traditions and expertise in delivering professional, vocational and technical education to meet employer needs. As such, they are able to play a key role in supporting the government’s policy objectives for apprenticeships. However, many universities and sector representatives have voiced concerns about the implementation the policy. Two key areas of concern are in the delays experienced in the procurement process for new training providers and in the approval of apprenticeship standards. Both delays undermine the capacity of universities and other providers to work with employers to establish and deliver high quality apprenticeship training that gives individuals in the workplace the necessary skills and opportunities.

31. Investing in higher education, whether for school leavers and older learners, for people about to enter the employment market or for those already in it, makes economic sense and generates growth. A successful, innovative and competitive economy needs highly-skilled individuals with the resilience, flexibility and problem-solving attributes to cope with the demands of 21st century workplace.

32. Since April 2017, the government has collected the apprenticeship levy as a tax from businesses with a payroll above £3m per year (at a rate of 0.5%). Since September 2017, employers have been able to use this levy to pay for

VAL0058

apprenticeship training. Those businesses that do not pay the levy are supported by the government for 90% of the costs of apprenticeships. The policy has been implemented to boost apprenticeships take-up, with a target of 3 million starts by 2020 and a significant emphasis on higher-level and degree apprenticeships.

33. Recent figures, however, demonstrate that apprenticeship starts have fallen by 41% since last year6, and there is a clear need to address this stark decline. Greater flexibility is needed in the system, and modern universities should have a prominent role to play in this agenda going forward.

34. A competitive economy needs to harness the ability of universities to support businesses in developing their workforce. Modern universities have long-standing traditions of offering more flexible study routes, accrediting workplace learning and developing multi-disciplinary, vocational, professional courses. However, the 2012 tuition fee and funding reforms exacerbated a decline in the part-time enrolment that enabled people already in work to learn while earning, and improve their existing skills.

35. Opening and promoting higher education to students of all ages, particularly to those already in the workplace, will benefit individuals and employers. Increasing skills and knowledge of employees will increase productivity and output, which in turn adds economic value to the UK and, because universities are dispersed around the country, contributes to more dynamic regional economies.

36. Building on the existing expertise of universities can achieve this, and should ensure that employers and employees are incentivised to take up opportunities for part-time, work-based professional development. This would enable employers to sponsor degrees and other learning opportunities to upskill their workforce. Successive governments have used tax credits to incentivise businesses, particularly SMEs, to invest in research. The same approach should be taken with continuous professional development, and the industrial strategy provides an opportunity to do that. There is also a strong case to provide new funding for those not in the workplace to update their skills.

The role of the Office for Students

37. The Office for Students has been clearly established as a regulator, rather than a funder, even though it will have a role in allocating funding to higher education providers. A key focus of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 it to introduce greater marketisation into the higher education sector, stemming from the government’s belief that a) there is not enough competition in the sector and b) increased competition will solve concerns the government has with the system.

38. The first role for the Office for Students is to operationalise the relevant sections of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, where it applies to

6 https://fsb.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/troubling-drop-in-apprenticeships

VAL0058

the work of the Office for Students. It will therefore only relate to provider activity related to teaching, access, participation, qualifications and outcomes. It will not cover research activity by universities. On 19 October, the Department for Education published the consultation on the regulatory framework on behalf of the Office for Students (which does not yet legally exist).

39. There are at two immediate tensions contained within the provisions of the Act that the Office for Students will need to balance. Firstly, there is the need to act as a market regulator and promote competition between providers in the higher education sector. This will involve encourage new providers to enter the market, and to allow providers to exit the market (or in lay terms, fail). Secondly, there is the need to uphold the public interest. These two duties have the potential to conflict with each other – it may be market logic for a course or institution to ‘fail’ but it could be in the public interest for the OfS to maintain provision because of a need (e.g. the course or institution plays a vital role in society or the economy). The challenge for the OfS will be to balance these two conflicts.

40. As a market regulator, the OfS will have a role in assessing the risk to students of studying a course, or at an institution. In this area it needs to be careful to recognise the possible unintended consequences of this role. By the very nature of higher education, universities create risk by offering students the opportunity to study based on potential. There are no guarantees. Often, the individuals who have the potential to make the most progress and gain the most benefit from a higher education experience are also the ones that are most at risk of withdrawing from courses. The OfS must avoid encouraging by its operations and language, universities ‘de-risking’ their provision by enrolling only students most likely to succeed.

Conclusion

41. Current debates about the funding of higher education in England and the Committee’s own Inquiry have centred on how to and who should pay for the costs of higher education. It is indisputable that, regardless of the funding regime adopted, higher education is a cost to government and therefore to taxpayers. The detail of the funding regime itself will impact on student and graduate perceptions of value or focus attention on specific aspects of the funding regime at the expense of other wider considerations. In fact, higher education also has outcomes and benefits for the Treasury, the individual, society and the economy, which need equal consideration. Any ‘value for money’ assessment therefore needs to take the economic costs but also the wider benefits of higher education into account.

42. There are different sources of value and a wide range of both economic and non-economic benefits accruing from degree level attainment. From the individual’s perspective, the economic benefits include monetary benefits, such as enhanced earnings and employment outcomes and reduced benefit dependency. These are complemented with non-economic benefits which include the greater probability of undertaking and completing further learning, as well as the wider benefits relating to increased self-confidence, self-esteem, intergenerational and social mobility, and engagement in community activity or voluntary work.

VAL0058

43. From the Exchequer perspective, graduates expand the tax base as a result of being more likely to be in employment, as well as increasing tax receipts as a result of their enhanced earnings. There are other wider Exchequer benefits associated with degree level provision, such as the reduced demand for NHS services, and reduced interactions with the criminal justice system.7 However, despite being significant, there are a number of benefits to the UK economy that are in general not given full consideration. These include the impact of degree level provision on firm level productivity, competitiveness and profitability (over and above employee wage gains); and the spillover effects of having highly trained workers working alongside less qualified colleagues.8

44. As a result of the enhanced earnings and employment outcomes compared to the next best alternative, a UK higher degree remains an exceptionally good investment for both the individual undertaking the qualification, as well as the Treasury funding their provision - and therefore, by default, the taxpayer. Given this, any reduction in participation rates will not only have consequences for individuals, and the Treasury, but will also impact on the volume of exports generated by the education sector and reduce the positive spillovers that arise from having a more qualified work-force.

45. Any review of the detail of the current funding and student support regime in England must take these wider considerations into account. It should also be borne in mind that the period since 2010 has been marked by instability in funding regimes for teaching in comparison to research. It remains our view that the outcome of any funding regime should be judged against an overriding principle – namely that all students have the right to a high quality well-funded higher education wherever they study, whatever course they study and whatever their age, background or their chosen mode of study (full or part-time).

October 2017

7 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254101/bis-13-1268-benefits-of-higher-education-participation-the-quadrants.pdf 8 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254101/bis-13-1268-benefits-of-higher-education-participation-the-quadrants.pdf pp41-42 

VAL0058

Appendix A

Government gran

t lette

rs to HEFC

E 2010 to 2017

2010/11*2011/12**

2012/13**2013/14

2014/152015/16

2015/16**2016/17

2017/18

Teach

ing

51074645

38152881

19151671

15211457

1386

Research

16181549

15871573

15731573

16951755

Teach

ing cap

ital207

9590

59154

140100

150

Research

 capital

167204

175221

286303

338203

High

er Ed

ucatio

n Innovatio

n Fu

nding

113113

113113

113113

Additio

nal re

search

 capital (R

CIF/SR

IF)158

53

Addito

nal

Unive

rsity Modernisatio

n Fu

nd ‐ sh

ared se

rvices

20

Voluntary m

atched givin

g62

0

FE ITT funding

8

Acce

ss to learn

ing fu

nd

4030

370

Natio

nal Sch

olarsh

ip Fu

nd

50100

500

Postgrad

 Support Sch

eme

500

Student n

umbers (FTE in

 000s)40

10

Co‐fu

nded provisio

n (FTE in

 000s)15

Total (£000s)

75006659

58604984

40913850

15213590

*1st from Coalitio

n go

vt

**Inclu

ded a d

irectio

n to

 promote 2‐yr d

egre

es

***In 12/13, G

ovt in

troduced fle

xible SN

C policy ‐ claw

ed back stu

dent su

pport co

sts 

****Revise

d lette

r from Conservative

 majo

rity government

VAL0058

Appendix B

HEFC

E allocatio

ns 2010‐2017 (£000s)*

2011/122012/13**

2013/142014/15

2015/162015/16

2016/172017/18

Core te

aching

36312443

1449522

95***

High

 costs su

bjects

131330

450661

672652

M/s A

dditio

nal fu

nded place

s2

UMF

Non‐m

/s additio

nal p

laces

54

WP

142141

Teach

ing e

nhancement an

d stu

dent su

cc264

243

Student O

pportu

nity Fu

nding

332****366

380688*****

669

Other targe

ted allo

cations

205285***** *

243247

245

Other re

curre

nt gran

ts47

Student n

umber gro

wth

37

Savings

QR

10971018

10181018

10171070

1098

London QR weigh

ting

3332

3232

33

QR ch

arity support

198198

198198

198198

198

QR busin

ess

6464

6464

6464

64

RDP su

pervisio

n205

240240

240240

240240

QR fo

r Natio

nal Lib

raries

66

66

77

7

Teach

ing

36872574

1779972

6610

672652

WP etc

611384

243613

6250

0669

Research

16031558

15581558

15590

15791607

*Figures u

sed are

 base

d on HEFC

E final ad

juste

d allo

cations fo

r each

 year w

here availab

le

**Intro

ductio

n of n

ew fu

nding re

gime

***Resid

ual su

pport fo

r old fu

nding re

gime

****TESS and W

P co

mbined an

d £50m

 removed

*****Combined  to

tal for So

F and targe

ted allo

cations

VAL0003  

Written evidence submitted by Charlie Heywood-Heath Summary of points below: - How tuition fees have provided a programme for social justice and mobility

for disadvantaged students - A twofold value for money for disadvantaged students, for themselves and

for future students. - The financial support in place for disadvantaged students 1. I am submitting evidence because as an undergraduate student I believe it is

crucial that we take part in committee processes such as this, to accurately reflect and answer the question posed in this inquiry. As a BA (Hons) Applied Research Methods with Social Policy student, I recognise the importance in getting first-hand experiences, which is what this submission serves to provide.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 2. As someone who is classed as a ‘disadvantaged student’ under the current

guidelines provided by the government and it’s supporting bodies (i.e. Student Finance England), I have confidence that there is an array of support in place. Prior to attending university, outreach programmes were made available by Russell Group universities for a variety of courses (namely law, social science, engineering and arts & humanities); this provides pathways into numerous degree disciplines and grants disadvantaged students the opportunity to gain more experience, which they wouldn’t necessarily have. These were made possible through the increased funding universities have accrued through the raising of tuition fees and other financial gains (Economic and Social Research Council; Universities UK, 2015).

3. In light of this, I concur that this reflects a twofold ‘value for money.’ Firstly,

the students who first started paying tuition fees have helped their fellow future students gain opportunities and access the system, which many previously could not. This has a trickledown effect because it not only helps the future students before and during they arrive, but also those who will arrive after them. Secondly, these very same students, when paying their tuition fees, will therefore be able to provide the exact same (if not better) support for other students in the future. For me, this means that as, time progresses, more disadvantaged students will gain further opportunities – strengthening the meritocratic ethos of our society.

4. This also continues into university, with bursaries and other non-monetary

support in place. The University of Sheffield, for example, offers a variety of bursaries for disadvantaged students – starting from £500 for those in areas where entrance into university is uncommon; the maximum bursary offered is £4,500 for those who may have no parental support or come from foster services (an issue experienced more by disadvantaged students).

VAL0003  

5. When considering the latter figure, when added to how much a disadvantaged student can receive from student finance (2017/2018: £8,400) this offers a large sum of money to assist them in their studies and ensure they are not forced to sacrifice academic potential.

6. In conclusion, I ascertain the view that there is a high level of social justice in

higher education as the government has ample programmes in place for disadvantaged students, which many universities have taken on board. It is therefore clear that the support is there before arriving and during university.

September 2017

VAL0068

Written Evidence submitted by Mrs Estelle Clarke

1. Social justice in higher education – funding costs. Key injustices are:

a) Students do not know and are not properly told the cost of their student

finance; student loans are unregulated; a loan document is not provided; terms are opaque and the cost of borrowing not shown and/or explained properly, for example with calculations; students are charged too much.

b) The interest rate of 6.1% is expensive, however it is less widely understood

that this 6.1% rate is actually compounded monthly, making loans bigger, last longer and creating a debt trap for borrowers. No students should be subjected to this extortive rate.

c) The less well off pay more than twice what their better off peers pay for the

same education. d) Student loan sales can disadvantage borrowers.

2. Support for disadvantaged students – maintenance costs. Key injustices are:

a) Less well off students are forced to take out maintenance loans at the

punitive 6.1% interest rate compounded monthly.

b) The less well off therefore graduate with double the debt of their better off peers and more than double the daily interest charge: after graduation, tuition fee loans will be charging student borrowers £5.17 a day (increasing) and tuition fee + maintenance loans will be charging less well off borrowers £12.20 a day (increasing).

c) The maintenance loans are insufficient for students’ subsistence costs –

after paying rent they typically have £5.37 a day1 to live off – for all bills, food, health costs, transport, books, personal hygiene, exercise, socializing etc.

3. Estelle Clarke is a former City solicitor (banking), a student loans campaigner and advisory board member of the Intergenerational Foundation.

4. Published work includes the “Feeling the Squeeze” trilogy on finance and

security published by Henry Stewart. She is author of the paper: “Packhorse Generation, the long debt tail of student loans” (January 2017). Her previous evidence includes: “Written evidence on clause 78 of the Higher Education and Research Bill” (6/9/2016)

VAL0068

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmpublic/HigherEducationandResearch/memo/HERB23.htm and for the Lords Select Committee (2017) - Economic Affairs Committee – Economics of higher, further and technical education enquiry which evidence (on student loan interest rates, loan sales and improvements needed) is accepted for publication.

Additionally, briefing notes: (i) 13/1/2017 – “The Higher Education and Research Bill – House of Lords “Access to higher education remains uneven...”Evidence on loans, maintenance grants and mental health, referencing, inter alia, Lord Dearing; Sir Paul Nurse; the Browne Review; loan sales; the OECD; Hurley and Moore v Secretary of State; mental health research”; (ii) 17/1/2017 – “Higher Education and Research Bill 2016/217 (the “Bill”) – Amendments - Suggested amendments to the Bill, Part 2 Other Education Measures, Financial support for students are new clauses 80, 81 and 82”; (iii) 22/2/2017 – “The Higher Education and Research Bill (HL Bill) (the “Bill”). (1) ‘Compromise amendments’ to stem falling admissions; and (2) ‘Rescue amendments’ to prevent public and economic damage by loan sales”.

5. Estelle’s work is widely referenced including by the BBC, ITV, LBC, Voice of Islam, the Financial Times, The Independent, Verge, Mail on Sunday, lovemoney.com, Unilad. This evidence is submitted in her personal capacity. www.estelleclarke.com

VAL0068

1. Students do not know and are not properly told the cost of their student finance; student loans are unregulated; a loan document is not provided; terms are opaque and the cost of borrowing not shown and/or explained properly, for example with calculations; students are charged too much. 1.1 At a time that government is increasing its protection for consumers, student loans remain unregulated. Student loans were removed from protective regulation including by section 8 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 (“SSLA”)2. It is important that student loans have regulatory protection, preventing student borrowers from being subject to unfair loan terms and treatment. Returning student loans to regulatory protection would also assist the general reputation of the student finance system. 1.2 Students are not given a loan agreement. Despite the large amounts being borrowed, they do not have their terms and conditions in one place. The online guidance issued and paper students are required to sign are insufficient. Without a loan agreement, students are not able to understand what they are taking on. They cannot go through terms properly with parents and/or advisors. Terms are difficult to access and understand, and government adversely retrospectively changes loan terms including those relating to the cost of the loans, for example interest costs and the threshold for repayment. Students should be given a loan agreement, which cannot be adversely changed except with their written consent. 1.3 The unjust practice of compounding monthly the 6.1% interest cost is complex and extremely expensive, yet it is not highlighted or explained properly, including with worked calculations3 (please see further, below). Students take up their loans when they are young – some as children at sixth form at school or college; many do not understand interest, let alone the complex monthly compounding mechanism student loans deploy. Proper explanation is not given to inexperienced student borrowers. 1.4 Tuition fees are too high and corresponding loans are too big; this has become a public and parliamentary subject of debate. As such it is not elaborated upon here, save to say it is unjust to charge students so much for their education when the whole of society benefits. Moreover, the “graduate premium” no longer exists for many, if not most, students once their student loans and associated costs are factored in. Graduates who do have a premium return the benefit of their education to the nation via taxes. 2. The interest rate of 6.1% is expensive, however it is less widely understood that this 6.1% rate is actually compounded monthly, making loans bigger, last longer and creating a debt trap for borrowers. No students should be subjected to this extortive rate. 2.1 The 6.1% “interest rate” is RPI plus 3%. Because it is compounded monthly, every month, interest due is added to the loans, making the loans bigger; each consecutive month the 6.1% interest due is calculated on the original loan and the

VAL0068

interest which has been added to it all previous months – interest on interest on interest.

2.2 The 6.1% compounded interest rate applies from the first loan advance to the student at the beginning of term one at university – even while students are studying at university this interest is accruing on their loans and students can do nothing about this. These daily interest costs increase because of the impact of compounded interest on borrowers’ loans: after this date, interest continues to be charged at 6.1% compounded monthly and is reduced only where income is £21,000 or less when it is RPI (3.1%) compounded monthly, rising up on a sliding scale to RPI plus 3% (6.1%) compounded monthly where income is £41,000 or more.

2.3 Compounded interest cost creates a debt trap for student borrowers because they cannot keep up with their interest costs, let alone pay off the capital: statements from the Student Loans Company show borrowers that even though they are making payments, their loans increase in size.

These interest costs have adverse impact4 for example,

Mental ill health of student borrowers is exacerbated; Motivation to attend and complete a university education is negatively

impacted; and Graduate borrowers report the costs are demotivating for maximizing income

because they think they will “be in debt forever”.

2.4 Government tries to defend the punitive monthly compounded interest costs by saying that only the top 23% of students will repay their loans and interest costs. This is no defense. It is abhorrent to charge any student borrower this extortive rate. 2.5 The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1988 provides that prescribed rates for student loans “shall at no time exceed the specified rate for low interest loans”5. 2.6 Compounded interest should be removed from all student loans immediately, including retrospectively. 2.6 If student loans are retained, it would be sensible for them to be interest free. This would have the added and significant facility of making Sharia-compliant student finance immediately available – a step that has been woefully delayed. Sharia-compliant student financing is necessary: Muslims and other religious groups can only use student funding which is "Sharia-compliant". Sharia-compliancy rules disallow charging real interest. 3. The less well off pay more than twice what their better off peers pay for the same education. 3.1 As noted above, because maintenance grants have been replaced with maintenance loans, less well-off students graduate with more than twice the amount of debt and more than twice the costs of their better off peers; debt and costs escalate cumulatively.

VAL0068

3.2 The argument is promulgated that abolishing student loans would only benefit the better off. As the impact of monthly compounded interest demonstrates, this is a specious argument because the “benefit” referenced largely comprises amounts accumulated because of monthly compounded interest which should not have been imposed in the first place. In any event, because the less well off are more adversely affected by debt and yet have twice the debt; the less well off would benefit more from loans being abolished. 3.3 It is unjust to charge less well off borrowers more than double what their better off peers are charged for the same education. 4. Student loan sales can disadvantage borrowers. 4.1 Loan sales threaten student borrowers because the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 specifically allows regulations to be made resulting in student borrowers being worse off as a result of loan sales, including by retrospective detrimental changes to loan terms which advantage loan purchasers. 4.2 The Secretary of State does not have to ‘endeavour’ or even ‘make reasonable efforts’ to ensure borrowers are not made worse off. Instead, clause 5 (6) of the SSLA allows the Secretary wide powers – “in amending loan regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that no borrower whose loan is transferred is in a worse position, as the result of the amendment, than would have been the case had the loan not been transferred.”

4.3 The lowly obligation of “aiming to” do something allows a ‘multitude of sins’ – the Secretary can impose borrower adverse changes while “aiming” not to. For example, passing regulations that increase borrower repayments - additional retrospective changes could be made to student loans such as raising the repayment rate from 9%. 4.4 Moreover, a sale forces student borrowers to deal with a private entity instead of the government and “crystallizes” loan terms. Crystallization potentially precludes student borrowers from benefiting from borrower friendly improvements to loan terms driven by public and political need for change. 4.5 It is unjust to exploit student borrowers by selling their loans without their consent, especially when legislation allows borrowers to be worse off as a result of this. Support for disadvantaged students – maintenance costs. Key injustices are: 1. Less well off students are forced to take out maintenance loans at the punitive 6.1% interest compounded monthly. 2. The less well off therefore graduate with double the debt of their better off peers and more than double the daily interest charge:

VAL0068

2.1 By the 6th April in the year following their graduation;

Tuition fee loans will be costing student borrowers £5.17 a day (increasing) and loans will have increased to £31,663 and be increasing; and

A combination of tuition fee and maintenance loans will be costing less well off borrowers £12.20 a day (increasing) and loans will have increased to £70,560 and be increasing.6

2.2 It is a bitter irony that less well-off student borrowers are charged more than twice as much in daily loan interest costs as their daily allowance for living costs. 3. The maintenance loans are insufficient for students’ subsistence costs – after paying rent they typically have £5.37 a day7 to live off – for all bills, food, health costs, transport, books, personal hygiene, exercise, socializing etc. This figure is generally much worse where students are living in university halls of residence because many such accommodation costs are higher and yet provided only for a 38-week period. 3.1 These key injustices can be resolved with the reintroduction of means tested maintenance grants in reasonable amounts. 3.2 It is strongly recommended that the cost of accommodation in university halls is subject to a review: such accommodation is so profitable that it creates wealth for third parties – there is a plethora of international “investors” in student accommodation. This raises a prima facie case that students are being unfairly exploited by overcharging. Worse still, the less well off students are funding their own exploitation with maintenance loans at punitive rates that will saddle them with overburdening debt. Conclusion

6. These social injustices demonstrate a cynical disregard for students as individual people:

7. The student funding system operates systemic discrimination and delivers

unjustifiable disparity in treatment of students from different socio economic and religious groups. There is profound social injustice in how students and different sub-groups of students are treated.

8. Recent parliamentary focus and discussion in committee have considered

at length the accountancy behind student finance. Little is heard of the people – the students and their families. Students seem to be seen as an investment opportunity. The social aspect of student funding – the person at the heart of the system – has become lost in this numerical focus. This loss perhaps explains how the student funding system has been allowed to develop with inherent social injustice and consequent problems: increasing mental ill health of students and university drop out rates reflect the weight students bear and how they are treated. They shoulder

VAL0068

a great burden of unfair and unevenly distributed debts effectively “for life”, while others profit from them.

9. The system has put pressure on each student borrower; sitting in a

lecture room, perhaps tired from working an evening job, striving to make a better life for us all; the graduate looking for a job with debt a millstone around his or her neck; the young family struggling to feed and house their children while every month hundreds of pounds are deducted directly from their earnings to pay a loan which is still getting bigger but may not have facilitated a better job; the Muslim family whose child cannot go to university because there is no funding available. This pressure needs to be taken off with a system that finances students equally and justly.

1 Rental costs of £520 a month, living outside London, receiving a maintenance loan of £8,200 (8,200 – (520 X 12)) ÷ 365 = 5.37 (example of a Bath University student) 2 SSLA section 8: “Consumer credit (1)The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) does not regulate loans made in accordance with regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30). [F1(1A)The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 does not regulate loans made in accordance with those regulations.] F2(2)[F2Subsection (1)] shall be treated as always having had effect.” 3 Para 1, page 9 of 2017/18 Student loans – a guide to terms and conditions “You’ll be charged interest on the loan from the day your first payment is made until it’s been repaid in full or cancelled. The interest will be calculated daily and applied to the amount you owe each month - this is known as ‘compound interest’.” Available here: http://media.slc.co.uk/sfe/1718/ft/sfe_terms_and_conditions_guide_1718_d.pdf 4 Extensively evidenced, please ask if you wish to see it, thank you. 5 Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, Section 22, (4): “In relation to loans under this section— (a) the rates prescribed by regulations made in pursuance of subsection (3)(a)— (i) shall be no higher than those which the Secretary of State is satisfied are required to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amounts of such loans, and (ii) shall at no time exceed the specified rate for low interest loans; …” http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/30/section/22 6 Calculated assuming that tuition fees remain at £9,250 for three years and using London maintenance rates of £11,002 rising with inflation of 2.9% to £11,321 and £11,648 in years two and three and assuming three terms: autumn term 3 months; spring term 4 months and summer term 5 months. Please note that tuition fees are paid 25% at the beginning of terms one and two and 50% at the beginning of term 3. Thank you. 7 As footnote 1

October 2017

VAL0051

Written Evidence submitted by the Nottingham Trent University

About Nottingham Trent University (NTU) 1) Recently awarded ‘Modern University of the Year’ in the Times and Sunday

Times Good University Guide (September 2017), NTU was formally created in 1992 but has a continuous history of educating adults that dates back to 1843. NTU is one of the largest Universities in the country with approximately 30,000 students. It has one of the best employment records in the nation, with 94% of our graduates and 95% of our postgraduates either being employed or engaged in further study six months after graduation. NTU has also recently been awarded a Gold rating in the recent TEF. NTU provides high quality at large scale.

2) Effectively facilitating social mobility is a key tenet of the ethos of NTU and is manifested through the University’s innovative and extensive outreach work in local communities. Our Schools, Colleges and Community Outreach (SCCO) Team develops character, builds social and cultural capital, and raises achievement amongst pupils in Nottingham’s least advantaged communities. Through its long-term support structure over the whole student lifecycle, participants who attend NTU advance on to graduate level employment or post-graduate study, key signifiers of social mobility, at a much higher rate than graduates from similar backgrounds who have not participated in our school-based activities.

Introduction 3) Nottingham Trent University welcomes this select committee’s inquiry into

the value for money in higher education, a metric which the university has long held as a key marker for its success.

4) As consumers of Higher Education, value for money should rightly be at the forefront of prospective students’ minds when deciding which university to attend or indeed whether to attend at all. But value for money must also mean value for taxpayers and for society as a whole. Universities have an inherent duty to serve all of these interests in the best way possible.

5) Currently there is an intense level of debate around multiple aspects of the UK’s Higher Education system. This debate is also to be welcomed in the pursuit of ensuring that our universities are not only fit for purpose but also remain highly competitive in the global market. The following submission outlines NTU’s views on the five key questions posed by the committee in its announcement of this inquiry. Some of the practical evidence detailed below has long been a feature of NTU and other parts of it are being enacted in

VAL0051

response to recent discourse. We do not shy away from change and evolution as an institution and believe that adaptability is at the core of being able to serve future generations of students and citizens.

Executive Summary 1) Value for money in Higher Education - NTU believe that value for money in

its educational – as opposed to its research and knowledge transfer - activities should be broadly determined by three factors:

a. Teaching excellence b. Graduate outcomes (employability) c. Social mobility

2) Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data – If NTU was to be best

judged on its VFM to students, taxpayers – including businesses – and society on one metric then it would be the number of its graduates in graduate-entry employment or training in a number of annual data points that reflect the time since leaving the University. The replacement of DLHE by LEO is a positive step, albeit that data would have to be contextualised by characteristics of university intake, disciplines of study, and location of employment in order to give a fair measure.

6) Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students – Both should be seen as key facets of all universities’ duties to society. Institutions that fail to do their utmost to facilitate both of these are fundamentally failing in these duties. NTU has a proud track record in both of these areas (detailed below) as we are among the top five recruiters of undergraduate students from low participation neighbourhoods in the country.

3) Quality of effectiveness of teaching – As a teaching-intensive university NTU

focuses its offer to students firmly on teaching excellence. We believe this focus ensures far greater value for money in contrast to a large number of other institutions - often styling themselves ‘elite’ - that are research-intensive but do not articulate how world-leading research benefits their students. Indeed, such research is often far removed from the average student’s experience of university and has little demonstrable impact on individual learning.

4) The role of the Office for Students - We believe the newly created Office for Students should be equipped with the requisite powers to hold universities to account should they not meet minimum standards in these criteria, including sanctions on fees.

5) Senior management pay in universities - NTU is taking steps to ensure that the pay of senior executives is as transparent as possible and scrutinised to the highest possible level. This includes the creation of an entirely separate

VAL0051

Remuneration Committee to oversee the pay of the University’s Executive Team (including the Vice Chancellor) with independent external and student representative members.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 6) NTU’s ambition is to enable all students to transform their lives by creating

opportunity for all. We have a strategic commitment and systematic approach to improving student outcomes, enhancing the student experience and engaging students. We take a holistic approach to this which sees 94% of our graduates and 95% of our postgraduates either being employed or engaged in further study six months after graduation

7) Evidence suggests that students taking part in meaningful work-like experience is an important factor in them achieving their full potential through development of the knowledge, skills and understanding that are most highly valued by employers. To this end, a key component of the NTU offer for many years has been working with students and regional, national and international businesses to secure high quality placements as part of the curriculum.

8) We have grown the volume of high quality placements available and improved support for students to secure these placements, supported by an Employability team of almost 100 staff.

9) Following our investment in resource to support our employability offer, an HEA audit (June 2016) commissioned to review our placement provision identified: ‘The NTU model is an exemplar to other HEIs as regards supporting employability, engaging employers, providing access to relevant and quality work based opportunities and ensuring effective support prior to, during and after the placement’.

10) Our evidence shows that engagement in extra and co-curricular activities is a major factor in reducing the attainment gap as well as enhancing employability. NTU offers a comprehensive range of activities, including internships, business incubation services, mentoring programmes, entrepreneurship workshops, and much more. These are captured in a University validated Higher Education Achievement Record that our graduates can share with potential employers.

11) We suggest that the Government and/or the OfS link any new measures

of success or failure for universities to the outcomes of graduates, specifically to the use of destination data. However, this data must be contextualised in order to serve as a robust measure of success. For many of our students, becoming quantity surveyors or fashion designers is as important to their own success – and that of the national economy - as

VAL0051

other universities seeking to turn out bankers and judges (although we do that as well).

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 12) NTU is among the top five recruiters of undergraduate students from low

participation neighbourhoods. In 2014, NTU admitted 13% of students from disadvantaged, low participation neighbourhoods; with 785 of first degree entrants from these areas. Our own research shows that the inclusion of a sandwich year within a degree removes completely the difference in rates of graduate level employment between our richest and our poorest students. Of our 2014 sandwich year graduates, 90% had acquired graduate-level jobs, regardless of their social background. It is why from 2018 onwards every one of the 10,000 young (and not so young) people in NTU’s new intake will undertake an assessed work experience as part of their degree. More generally, 79% of all 2015-16 graduates entered graduate-level jobs or training within six months of graduating, higher than the sector average.

13) Our target audiences for outreach are disadvantaged pupils, schools, communities and NTU students. There is no single ideal indicator of disadvantage and therefore we use a combination of factors1. We work with pupils, families, schools and not-for-profits in an area roughly one hour’s driving distance from NTU and with all academic schools across the University. Our schools liaison service (SCCO) focuses on regional feeder schools. Each year we:

Run over 700 activities across Nottingham Place over 300 NTU students in local schools Work with over 30,000 pupils in local schools Place around 1000 volunteers in a range of communities

14) While there are multiple markers for social mobility, NTU has identified

entry to a graduate level job or further training as a key signifier of success. Though the main driver of this is access and progression through higher education, NTU understand that interventions are needed far before this point to be successful. This is why our SCCO programmes start with primary school age children at age eight.

15) In their summer 2014 GCSE exams, 61% of SCCO pupil participants achieved five or more A*-Cs compared with 45% of all pupils from across Nottingham. Moreover, 36% of participants on SCCO’s pre-16 outreach programme from these neighbourhoods went to university by 19.

                                                            1 including geodemographic classifications, Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and household income

VAL0051

16) NTU suggests that facilitating social mobility and providing support for disadvantaged students become central factors by which higher education institutions are judged.

Senior management pay in universities 17) NTU - including the Vice Chancellor, Executive Team and Governors -

recognise and agree that there is public interest in the manner in which the pay of the senior staff of our University is determined.

18) Currently, the remuneration of senior staff at NTU is determined by our Remuneration and Employment Policy Committee. The Terms of Reference for this Committee include discussion on a much broader range of issues connected to HR policies and practices in addition to senior staff salaries. The Vice-Chancellor is currently a member of this Committee. This membership reflects his responsibilities to ensure the clear organisation, direction, and management of the University, as well as his central role in determining pay and conditions of service for its staff. With regard to remuneration, the Committee’s Terms of Reference specifically state the Vice-Chancellor should withdraw from discussions on his own salary and, indeed, he has always done so.

19) Despite the Board of Governors expressing no dissatisfaction with the way

this committee carries out its functions, NTU has begun the process of instigating a series of changes to ensure that the setting of senior management pay is as transparent and accountable as possible. These include:

a. The creation of an entirely separate Remuneration Committee to

determine University Executive Team salaries, pension provision for senior staff who are at a lifetime allowance position and severance arrangements for senior staff. This Committee will convene once per year. The Vice-Chancellor will not be a member of this Committee. Additional membership of the Remuneration Committee will include:

1. A Student Voice (likely to be a former NTSU president or a former student who had graduated in the previous 5 years). This would be for a three-year term.

2. An independent advisor (unknown to the University).

b. Increasing transparency around the Vice-Chancellor’s remuneration. This remuneration is based largely on institutional performance against KPIs agreed by the Board of Governors and reviewed annually. Progress against these targets is already available on the staff intranet but, in future, we will put this information on the public part of our website, redacted as appropriate to protect data that are commercially sensitive. We will also put on our website the

VAL0051

current salary of the Vice-Chancellor and, at the end of the financial year, details any other benefits that he has received in the preceding academic year.

c. The President of Nottingham Trent Students’ Union was and continues to be consulted about these KPIs as an ex officio member of the Board of Governors. However, the Chair of our Remuneration Committee will from 2018/19 specifically seek the view of the President on future Vice-Chancellor remuneration in the light of performance against targets.

20) We are also aware that the issue of university’s application of proportionate pay in line with guidance from the Charity Commission has been raised in the course of an ongoing debate on this issue. At the moment the University does not have a specific policy on proportionate pay. It takes as its starting position the adoption of the national framework uplift award negotiated by the Universities and Colleges Employers association (UCEA) when setting salary levels for its staff. The Remuneration and Employment Policy Committee pays close attention to the data issued annually to the sector from UCEA about Vice-Chancellors’ terms and conditions across UK universities.

21) This is, however, an issue which we are aware is currently being considered within the higher education sector. We will ensure that our future policy on this matter is cognisant of any guidance that is issued by UCEA and/or by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC); we anticipate such guidance being available during this calendar year.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 22) Nottingham Trent is a teaching-intensive and research-active University,

committed to enabling our students to transform their life chances and to enhancing the social, cultural and economic environment within which they live, study, volunteer and work. We are proud that our experience and expertise in learning and teaching can be traced back to the Nottingham Government School of Design, established in 1843 to provide innovation and skills to ensure the prosperity of the textiles industry in the East Midlands.

23) The structure of the University has been revised to reflect our focus on the student experience. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor is responsible for the leadership of teaching excellence within the University. Each school has a Deputy Dean explicitly concerned with the quality of Teaching and Learning. Three academic pathways of equal status and standing are available to academic colleagues: teaching and research; teaching and scholarship; and teaching and practice. As their titles suggest, all of these pathways require an active engagement with teaching.

VAL0051

24) An example of this focus on teaching and learning is that when students

join us we create a student profile in our award-winning learning analytics Student Dashboard system; this is fundamental in helping us to manage and improve student learning. Analytics track student interaction with their course and specified resources in a single, intuitive interface. Dashboard models show how and if students engage with their courses, focuses personalised tutorial discussion, and alerts tutors to low engagement that may require intervention.

25) The quality of NTU course design and assessment is consistently confirmed by external panel members and examiners, who indicate that our courses are designed to ensure that students are stretched in developing their knowledge, skills and attributes. Illustrations of this include:

a. Thematic analysis of course approval reports demonstrates that a recurring theme in the commendations for curriculum design relates to the linking of theory to practice.

b. External reviewers have praised the number of work-placements, mentoring relationships, and instances of reflective practice in our courses.

c. Panels also commend the provision of extra-curricular activities, study visits, interactions with industry professionals, live projects and opportunities for students to experience advanced scholarly research.

26) The result of this work is that NTU is sector-leading in satisfaction with

assessment and feedback on students’ work. Our NSS scores for assessment and feedback are above sector averages and have maintained a year on year increase since 2012.

27) Overall, therefore, our mission and priorities are strongly aligned to high quality teaching and to the aspirations of the TEF, pursuing innovation that delivers ever-improving student experience and, in particular, supporting the successful studies of students from less advantaged backgrounds.

28) NTU suggests that the ability to charge higher fees continues to be

directly linked to performance in the TEF.

The role of the Office for Students Beyond the broad observation in the Executive Summary, NTU would want to reserve detailed comment on the OfS until it has scrutinised the consultation documents issued last week. However, we are of the view that it should have access to the requisite data and powers to identify and act where universities are experiencing failures of governance and management, teaching quality, and access of disadvantaged students against agreed targets. We do not believe that its powers should be used to pursue short-term media or political issues - e.g.

VAL0051

making registration of universities dependent on satisfactory accounts of senior pay - as these will lead to significant push-back from, and loss of credibility within, the sector. Conclusion - What can the Government do to ensure value for money in higher education? 1) Link fees to the TEF, graduate outcomes and social mobility criteria 2) Ensure that the OfS has necessary power to hold HE institutions to account

when they fail to meet these criteria 3) Place social mobility and improving access at the heart of markers for

success for any universities

October 2017

VAL0007

Written Evidence submitted by Dr Peter Knight Senior Management Pay in Universities I am a retired Vice-Chancellor and I have knowledge and experience of pay policies and systems at a national level. I believe that the current levels of pay and some of the increases in the pay of Vice-Chancellors (VC’s) are difficult to justify and have caused significant damage to the reputation of universities. If the system is to be improved it is essential that we understand why these increases have occurred.

I. Executive Summary.

a. The increases in pay are being caused by Remuneration Committees following “best practise” guidance from the Council of University Chairs (CUC).

b. The use of performance related pay also drives pay upward. c. The determination of pay on appointment can contribute to the

increase in pay for Vice-Chancellors.

II. Remuneration Committees and the “Rem-Co” Effect.

1. Remuneration Committees are usually made up of members of the university council with knowledge and experience of pay. These individuals are giving their time and experience to the university to support its mission. They are unpaid and they will want to set a level of pay that is fair and defensible. Given the number of UK universities and the average size of Remuneration Committees there are probably 500 – 600 people involved in the exercise nationally.

2. The guidance from the CUC (note 1) (para 27) recommends that one of the items of information to be considered is the pay of VC’s in comparable institutions. This seems reasonable and a good starting point. Data is often obtained for 15 – 20 similar institutions. There may be assistance from external consultants and the committee will usually see the average pay as well as the upper and lower quartile levels. This comparable data may be received annually or once every three or so years.

3. The committee will also be recommended to decide a policy as to where it wishes to set pay for the VC and to explain that policy to the university council. Once again this seems reasonable and provides a level of reassurance to members of council as to the rational and fairness of the approach.

4. When taking this decision Remuneration Committees rarely decide that they are going to pay their VC below average. They have pride in their university and will usually decide to set pay above average, often close to

VAL0007

the upper quartile. This leads to what is known in pay circles as the “Rem-Co effect”.

5. It is mathematically inevitable that if all or even most Remuneration Committees decide to pay at the upper quartile then when that new pay level is fed into the comparison pay for the next university to undertake the exercise it will increase the average pay. Over a period of three or four years the upper quartile becomes the new average and the cycle of inflation in senior pay continues inexorably upward. This driver for increases is separate from any increase that might happen because of annual inflation.

III. Performance Related Pay.

6. For several years there was implicit encouragement to introduce an element of performance related pay (PRP) for senior staff. Little is known about the extent of PRP for VC’s but it appears to be in use in a significant proportion of the sector.

7. In my own institution the Remuneration Committee introduced PRP and applied it for several years. I was set and agreed various targets and usually achieved sufficient success to be awarded a bonus payment. I often advised the Chair of Council that I would have worked exactly as hard with the same level of commitment to the university even if no PRP was available. I regarded the achievement of such targets and objectives as the reason why I was already being paid a generous salary.

8. After discussion the Remuneration Committee eventually decided to cease to pay any performance bonuses. In my view there was absolutely no consequences whatsoever in terms of the direction and success of the institution or the performance of the individuals in senior posts. PRP gave zero value for money.

9. As any element of PRP is not separately identified in the public report of VC’s salaries these sums are likely to represent further additions to the pressure that increases the average comparable salaries of VC’s.

IV. Appointment of VC’s and Starting Salary.

10.Some universities take pride in being able to attract and appoint a VC from abroad, usually the USA or Australia. I welcome such appointments but they may require comparatively high initial salaries. While the appointment of an outstanding candidate can be a justification for high pay such appointments should not be used as a comparator for other salaries as that would just be another inflationary driver on VC’s pay. A note of caution: Some successful appointments are not “new” candidates to the UK system but are ex-pats returning home. The justification for high pay in these cases might be weaker.

VAL0007

11.Comparisons of pay in UK universities with USA institutions are not valid as the USA universities are substantially larger (Harvard is larger than Oxford and Cambridge combined and has assets that make it the third largest charitable institution in the world) and operate in a very different pay environment.

12.When a university advertises for a new VC they are coy about the starting salary. This is usually on advice from recruitment consultants who may be more attuned to pay policies in the private sector. An unfortunate consequence of this vagueness is an unseemly bit of haggling once the successful candidate has been identified. The haggling is always upwards. This aspect of pay inflation could be avoided by simply stating the starting salary in the advertised details of the post.

13.Recruitment consultants can provide a useful service to an appointment committee as the committee may be reluctant to use the internal HR service of the university. The consultants will advise on where and how to advertise and may well also advise on the level of pay that might be appropriate. The terms of business of some consultants require their fee to be based on a proportion (4 – 6 months) of the salary of the successful candidate. Unfortunately, this could be interpreted as giving the consultants a vested interested in promoting a higher level of pay than might be justified.

V. Ideas to consider.

14.The responsibility for oversight of the policy of senior pay in universities must rest with the CUC. An unintended consequence of the current advice and procedures is that every element of that advice is inflationary.

15.The following changes could be introduced: -

a. When considering any annual increase in pay for the VC and senior staff the default decision should be that the increase is identical to the increase in base pay for the staff of the university. A similar but more generous approach would be to set the increase in line with the increase in average earnings of the staff. If not; why not.

b. PRP should be avoided. The Remuneration Committee should ask itself why they need to pay more for excellent performance when they are already paying a substantial salary. Only if they can find a satisfactory answer to that question should PRP be considered further.

c. The Remuneration Committee must understand the Rem-Co effect. If they do wish to look at comparative pay they should ensure that the institutions selected are good comparators. This would mean excluding data from Oxbridge, institutions that have recently

VAL0007

recruited from overseas, institutions that have recruited a serving VC from another university and any atypical institutions such as London Business School.

d. When deciding pay at recruitment, state it clearly in the advertisement and set the level below any notional average to allow headroom for future reward (if justified).

VI. Personal Comment.

I served as a head of institution (Vice-Chancellor) for 22 years. It was a superb job to have and I enjoyed it immensely. While I carried out the duties of a CEO in terms of management of large budget, staff, capital programs and long-term strategy, the nature of a university is such that I never saw myself as a CEO and found the term that was often used by other institutions distasteful. Any comparisons that are made between the duties of a Vice-Chancellor and the private sector in terms of job comparability are not valid.

It is right that the performance of the VC should be monitored and

evaluated by the council of the university. This is not easy. While annual targets can certainly be set, nothing happens quickly in higher education. A competent Vice-Chancellor should be able to see threats and opportunities for their institution 2 or 3 years ahead and advise the council accordingly. The real measure of the success of the VC is the contribution they make to the direction of the university on a timeframe of 5 to 10 years. This is the critical success factor and I do not see how this aspect of the role can be used to contribute to any PRP or similar reward.

Finally, we all need to remember that a university, while a large and

complex institution, is a charity. Levels of pay and/or large increases in pay must recognise the nature of the institution and its charitable foundation. The current levels of pay for VC’s do not seem to be acceptable in that regard.

Dr Peter Knight. This submission is made in a personal capacity. CUC Guidance on Remuneration Committees can be found at: - http://www.universitychairs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IPN1-Remuneration-Committees.pdf

October 2017

VAL0009 Written Evidence submitted by Professor Ali Eftekhari

PFHEA

How Can TEF Close the Gender Pay Gap?

1.1 Synopsis

1.2 Postgraduate programmes are not practically gender-neutral, and male graduates are significantly more successful, which results in gender pay gap. This problem may exist at all levels but more evident in postgraduate research programmes. There is no action plan by neither the government nor universities to tackle this issue. So much the worse, this failure is not even openly acknowledged despite clear evidence.

1.3 A key purpose of TEF is social justice to make HE more meaningful in

terms of the financial investment made by the students. Female students pay the same tuition fee but receive lower salaries upon graduation. The social injustice is obviously more severe for female students, but no attention has been paid to this matter in TEF whatsoever. Note that female students are now the majority, and gender-insensitive implementation of TEF means widening the gender pay gap (as it will further favour the male graduates then).

1.4 Athena SWAN charter is an incentive for universities to increase the number of female staff, but there is no incentive whatsoever to offer postgraduate programmes with the same quality to female and male students as can be judged by their performance/achievements.

2.1 Biography

2.2 Ali Eftekhari is a professor of chemistry temporarily with Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University. He has worked in various capacities in HE across 4 continents. He has established 2 academic schools from scratch. The last one in Ethiopia was named as an exceptional success story in African higher education by The Guardian. While the gender imbalance in African universities is terribly bad (1/10), he was able to massively improve the ratio, which is considered as a role model. He advised the Iranian Parliament on the HE bills of the national 5-year plan in 2009 when massive reforms were planned in the country’s HE infrastructure. Following his outstanding contributions to HE, he was elected as a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA). He is also a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IMMM).

3.1 The Roots of Gender Pay Gap

VAL0009 3.2 Gender pay gap is unquestionably one of the most serious forms of social

injustice. Nobody blames HEIs for this because it is assumed that both genders receive the same education. However, it is not necessarily true. In many cases, the chance of male applicants is more when fresh graduates are applying for the same job.

3.3 To clarify the issue, let’s consider research jobs at universities where HEIs

are both the provider and the employer. Although the pay gap is less severe in HE, the gender ratio indicates the injustice regarding the value for money. The gender ratio dramatically changes when from postgraduate programmes to postdoctoral fellows. Since it is very difficult to get a faculty appointment without postdoctoral experience, the number of female applicants for the faculty positions is lower than the male counterparts (e.g., in disciplines with reasonable gender balance).

3.4 Athena SWAN charter supports the recruitment of more female academics,

but the problem is at the underlying level. The question is: if the HEIs provide the same education to both female and male postgraduates students, why the same HEIs favour male applicants in recruiting early-career researchers?

4.1 Postgraduate Programmes

4.2 The reason that this problem vividly appears at the postgraduate level is because of the critical role of research. At the undergraduate level, education is mostly based on knowledge transfer, which is standardised, but research strategies generally favour male students because the research models have been historically evolved in a male-dominanted community (i.e., still the case). I have some theories, based on my academic experiences, explaining this issue, but I would like to express the general issue here without my personal opinion. The undeniable fact is that the postgraduate programmes favour the success of male students, and as a result, their research outputs are more significant than their female counterparts. This is the reason that male applicants for postdoctoral positions are more successful, and then, can find their career path in HEIs.

4.3 According to the national statistics given by HESA, in 2015/2016, 57% of

the postgraduate students were female (303,875 female, 228,950 male). This ratio immediately drops to 42% (17,110 female, 23,175 male) for research associates/fellows working at HEIs. These numbers cover all research positions, and the ratio is much worse at the postdoctoral level. The gender ratio at the faculty level is 38% (30,400 female, 49,905 male). The latter ratio is similar to that of postdoctoral fellows. Therefore, the gender imbalance at the faculty level is directly rooted in the inappropriate PhD programmes, which do not pave the path to academic/research career for the female students.

4.4 Note that the problem described here is discipline-dependent and much

more severe in some fields (e.g., STEM) in which the academic competencies rely on specific research outputs.

VAL0009

5.1 Gender Injustice in HE

5.2 Two years ago, the eminent British Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt reportedly told the World Conference of Science Journalists: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.” The offence taken was so strong that he resigned from the Imperial College London just two days later. However, nobody asked why is he thinking this way? In practice, many academics, in whose research groups the female students should work, think the same way. Once again, we buried the problem instead of finding its underlying roots.

5.3 Even if women are less resistive against scientific criticism as stated by Sir

Tim Hunt (which I personally disagree); then, there is something wrong with our criticism culture, not women. It is not the responsibility of women to adapt themselves to the research culture developed by the other gender. Instead, we have to develop a more efficient research strategy (at least for the educational purpose) with gender neutrality.

5.4 Various statistical analyses published in scholarly journals such as

Scientometrics reveal that number of citations of the publications of female senior academics is less than that of male counterparts; this is not a matter of quality, but because female academics publish fewer papers. This is exactly the same problem of failure at the postgraduate level described above. In other words, if not properly addressing the issue of research culture at the postgraduate level, this problem directly ascends to the higher levels too.

6.1 TEF Gender-insensitivity?

6.2 It is wrongfully believed that gender-insensitive nature of TEF respects the

gender equality in general, but it does not. Not acknowledging an existing problem does not resolve it. True gender-insensitivity of TEF can be proved if and only if both female and male graduates gain the same value for money. The interesting point is that female students normally give better ratings to their universities in the national surveys. This means universities are achieving higher TEF awards by the support of less-served students.

7.1 Helping Women or Seeking Their Help?

7.2 Just a century ago, women were not allowed to attend scientific lectures. The change was implemented by efforts to give women the right they should have in the first place. The motive is to give women an equal opportunity, but the fact is that science was suffering in the absence of women. It is of the vital importance to understand that we need gender balance to maximise the system efficiency. Athena SWAN charter does not increase the chance of women but tackles the education inefficiency resulted in the long history of gender imbalance in HE.

VAL0009 7.3 These two opposite perspectives of helping women or seeking their help

may seem similar as both result in the same outcome, but realising the difference can substantially enhance the education system. TEF should necessarily focus on the success of female students because of not only gender equality but also the critical importance of this issue to achieve real teaching excellence.

8.1 Higher Education and Research Act 2017

8.2 One of the key themes of the Office for Students is to extend the aims of the Office for Fair Access to a more practical level. The latter Office aimed to justify the fairness of tuition fees for the students in general. Isn’t it unfairness that female students pay the same tuition fee and should expect lower salaries upon graduation? Neither this Act nor other plans such as TEF consider available options to tackle this issue.

8.3 Gender balance should be seen as an essential requirement for diversity.

Without reaching a reasonable gender ratio, there will be inefficiency in research, as we require different perspective to deal with complicated problems. However, despite the high number of female students, they show less interest in research-active disciplines for the reasons discussed above (where the gender gap is still huge). The gender ratio in strategic fields including the eight great technologies highlighted by the government, which are of national interest. Hence, this is a serious topic in Part 3 of the Act too, which can only be addressed by adjusting the postgraduate programmes.

9.1 Recommendations to the Government

9.2 TEF should have a specific criterion to honour universities in which female students can reach the same achievements at the level of male students to close the gender pay gap.

9.3 New governmental programmes should investigate why postgraduate research programmes do not serve female students at the same level of male students. This can be considered for various types of programmes at different levels, but the direct evidence is given for the postgraduate research programmes here.

October 2017

VAL0016

Written Evidence submitted by Professor Geoffrey

Alderman

Executive Summary

The Teaching Excellence Framework1 measures many things, but true

teaching excellence is not one of them.

There is widespread misconception concerning the nature of the learning

process at the level of what is termed “higher” education.

In “higher education” learning is effected primarily through guided self-

study. Therefore metrics such as “contact hours” are at best a poor guide

to the quality of teaching and learning, as are employment prospects or

salary following graduation.

Existing higher-education regulatory bodies have not yet effectively

addressed the policing of academic standards.

In particular, the Quality Assurance Agency has proved itself incapable of

undertaking this task.

The Office for Students would therefore be well advised to look elsewhere

for the design and deployment of efficient and effective mechanisms by

which academic standards may be monitored.

1 Now [October 2017] cosmetically and somewhat disingenuously retitled The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework.

VAL0016

Submission

1. I am by background a teacher and researcher in the broad fields of modern

British history and politics, and have published extensively in these

specialisms. I have also researched and published extensively – both in the

UK and the USA - in fields allied to the maintenance and calibration of quality

and standards in higher-education.

2. I have over 50 years’ experience of higher education worldwide. I currently

hold an endowed chair at the University of Buckingham [a private not-for-

profit university established by Royal Charter], having previously held senior

positions in the University of London (where I was Pro Vice-Chancellor for

Academic Standards) and Middlesex University (where I was Pro Vice-

Chancellor for Quality & Standards).

3. Concurrently I am Principal of Nelson College London, a medium-sized for-

profit provider of career-focussed higher-education courses in the London

Borough of Redbridge, with a specific mission to widen participation.

4. Between 2000 and 2006 I was a senior university administrator with

American universities, both not-for-profit and for-profit. My full CV and

bibliography are available on my website: www.geoffreyalderman.com .

There is also an entry for me in Debrett’s People of Today.

5. In 2008-9 I gave both written and oral evidence to an inquiry conducted by

the then Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science & Skills.2 I

am pleased that some of my recommendations have been carried into law,

notably through the Higher Education & Research Act 2017. I want now to

2 House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science & Skills Committee Students and Universities: Memoranda of Evidence (2009), Memorandum 14.

VAL0016 concentrate on two areas of interest to the present Select Committee,

namely (a) the quality and effectiveness of teaching and (b) the Office for

Students.

6. The evidence I give is offered exclusively in a private and personal capacity.

The Quality and Effectiveness of Teaching

7. Over the past few years there has been a great deal of ill-informed public

discussion centring on what are termed the “quality” and “effectiveness” of

teaching in our institutions of higher education.

8. At the level of higher education, the learning process is grounded in guided

self-study. To affect to measure teaching quality and effectiveness

substantially in terms of contact hours is therefore to betray a

misunderstanding of what “higher” education is about. At that level (“higher”

education) contact hours have some but a very limited impact on the

effectiveness of the learning process.

9. Neither can the effectiveness or quality of higher-education teaching be

sensibly measured by reference to subsequent employment – and certainly

not to salary on or shortly after graduation.3

10.Nor are students “customers” in the conventional sense of the word. In the

worlds of business and commerce the goal of a manufacturer or trader may

indeed be to satisfy the customer. In the world of higher education – and

insofar as fee-paying students may be viewed as “customers” – the goal is to

challenge and change the customer rather than to satisfy her or him. Put

bluntly, if after following a course of study under my direction a student

3 I have never – ever- promised any intending students that studying with me will of itself increase their subsequent employment or salary prospects.

VAL0016 emerges with an intellectual capacity no greater than was the case at the

outset of the course, I have in all probability failed as a teacher.

11.This [hopefully positive] change in intellectual capacity can certainly be

measured4, but not by any of the yardsticks employed by the current

Teaching Excellence Framework, which seems to me to have measured

almost everything except the quality of teaching and learning.

The Office for Students

12.In my evidence to the 2008-9 Select Committee I stated categorically that

over the previous twenty or so years there had been a systemic failure to

maintain appropriate academic standards in British higher education, with

the result that these standards had measurably declined. I have not wavered

from that view.

13.When in 2007 I delivered my inaugural professorial lecture at the University

of Buckingham (entitled “Teaching Quality Assessment, League Tables and

the Decline of Academic Standards in British Higher Education”) I gave

examples of the deliberate dumbing-down of academic standards at the

behest of university administrations.

14.One such was the celebrated case of Dr Paul Buckland, who in 2007 resigned

as professor of environmental archaeology at Bournemouth University. He

did so in protest at the decision of university authorities that 13 students

whom he - and a formal examinations board - had judged to have failed a

course should nonetheless be deemed to have passed it. In so doing, the

university authorities appear to have endorsed the view of a senior official

that students should have been able to pass the course merely on the basis

of lecture notes, without doing the required reading. 4 I would be delighted to share with the Select Committee my thoughts on the ways in which such measurement might be carried out.

VAL0016

15.But I noted that the problem did not just affect the ex-polytechnics. I drew

attention to the strange case of one Russell Group university where in the

autumn of 2006 it emerged that a drastic reform of the grading process had

resulted in the proportion of students achieving first-class honours jumping

from 7% (2005) to over 17%, and that it had apparently become possible for

students to be awarded first-class honours without having actually achieved

a first-class mark in any individual component of their degrees.

16.I drew attention to another Russell Group institution which had appointed as

sole external examiner of a Master’s degree an individual who had no

competence whatever in the crucial language component of this degree.

17.But even I was unprepared for the audacity of Manchester Metropolitan

University, where in 2009 a quite outrageous sanction (expulsion from its

Academic Board) was meted out against a teacher brave and professional

enough to have given damning evidence of dumbing-down to the very same

Select Committee before which I had appeared.

18.This shocking incident was fully investigated by the Select Committee, whose

report (published in July 2009) devoted a whole chapter5 to the university in

question.

19. Just four months after the publication of this report the Quality Assurance

Agency for Higher Education happened to carry out a routine “institutional

audit” of Manchester Metropolitan University.6 Not only was there no mention

of the incident in the audit report; the auditors had the audacity to proclaim

that they felt that “confidence can reasonably be placed in the soundness of

5 Chapter Six. 6 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/ReviewsAndReports/Documents/Manchester%20Metropolitan%20University/Manchester-Metropolitan-IA-09.pdf [accessed 17 September 2017]

VAL0016 the institution's present and likely future management of the academic

standards of the awards that it offers.”

20.There is an interesting if alarming sequel to this story. In the summer of

2016, and as part of my own investigation as to why the QAA’s 2009 audit

report on Manchester Metropolitan University made no mention of the

incident, I attempted to contact members of the original audit team. I was

formally “warned off” such contact by Mr W. Naylor, then the QAA’s Director

of Quality Assurance.7

21.I must also draw the attention of the present Select Committee to an article

published by Professor Peter Green in the Summer 2017 edition of the

Journal of Contemporary Development & Management Studies, entitled “QAA

Reviews; Fact or Fabrication.” In that essay Professor Green, a long-serving

and highly experienced QAA reviewer, declares that:

QAA Higher Education Reviews for Alternative Providers (QAA

HER(AP)) promote and nurture institutional and individual

academics collusion in ‘fabrication of performance’ … By

fabricating academic standards and teaching and learning

quality, funds and/or public kudos are potentially available, if

the institution is able, through both internal self-evaluation and

QAA inspection, to present and represent improved

performance.8

22.I do not therefore think that the Office for Students would be wise in handing

over the (absolutely essential) policing of academic standards to the Quality 7 In an email to me dated 15 August 2016 Mr Naylor wrote: “I understand you have attempted to contact one or more QAA reviewers to discuss the details of QAA reviews 'off the record.' You should be aware that QAA reviewers are bound by contract not to discuss the confidential details of reviews. I should be grateful, therefore, if you would desist. Any requests for information about QAA review should be made through the official channels.” 8 The entire article may be accessed at: http://www.londonchurchillcollege.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Journal%20Vol%205%20No%201%20Summer%202017%20Web%20version.pdf

VAL0016 Assurance Agency. It will have to devise another mechanism by which such

surveillance may be confidently carried out. I shall be glad to share with the

Select Committee my thoughts as to how such a mechanism may be devised.

October 2017

VAL0041

Written Evidence submitted by Russell Group

1. Summary

I. Higher Education is a national success story for the UK. Universities are one of this country’s major assets, teaching over two million students per year, with an international reputation for quality and student satisfaction. Russell Group universities play a critical role in maintaining the UK’s reputation for high quality research-intensive learning, offering excellent teaching and working hard to ensure all those with the potential to succeed have the opportunity to do so.

II. Russell Group universities deliver great value to students. They support them to develop the personal and professional skills that are integral to graduate-level jobs, meaning they are better able to realise their ambitions and to contribute fully to our society and economy. The research-intensive learning environment at our universities means students are taught to think critically, analyse and solve complex problems, and bring ideas and teams together – all skills which enable graduates to adapt in a rapidly changing labour market.

III. The vast majority (80%) of Russell Group graduates enter professional employment just six months after graduation and benefit from a higher earnings premium than graduates from other universities. The value of a degree is not restricted to economic advantages; the knowledge, skills and personal qualities (such as empathy, curiosity and confidence to challenge received wisdom) acquired by students means they enjoy a range of benefits including better health, higher levels of civic engagement, and increased likelihood of a fulfilling career.

IV. The value of a Russell Group degree is by no means exclusive to students as a highly skilled workforce is critical to the UK’s prosperity. The provision of STEM skills leads to a range of positive impacts including innovative new technologies and products; improvements in health and quality of life; and productivity improvements and economic growth. The role of learning in enhancing the collective human capacity of the UK’s population has benefits for all citizens.

V. Our universities also deliver economic, social and cultural value to the UK and their local communities across the full range of their activities. They:

o engage with and open themselves up to their local communities, supporting social cohesion, enhancing prosperity and facilitating social mobility

o produce excellent research, innovation and knowledge exchange outcomes which drives economic growth and productivity and changes people’s lives for the better

o are major employers and sources of local leadership in their communities, bringing together local stakeholders and drawing on their

VAL0041

wide-ranging international links, expertise and knowledge to tackle key challenges and enhance local prosperity

VI. As charities, universities have a remit to deliver for the public good. This also means they have a responsibility to remain accountable for their use of public funds and financial decisions are scrutinised carefully to ensure they provide value for money. Our universities are working hard to maximise the impact of their investments and realise efficiencies across everything they do. They seek to continually improve the value for money they provide to both the student and taxpayer, with a shared commitment to keeping the interests of students front and centre.

VII. In order to continue to deliver this wide range of economic and social benefits to students, taxpayers and local communities, universities need a sustainable base of funding and a regulatory environment which facilitates and supports the continued delivery of high quality education, research and innovation in a diverse HE sector.

2. The value our universities deliver for students, communities and the UK’s wider economy and society

The value of a Russell Group degree

2.1. Our universities are at the leading edge in educating and training the highly-skilled and adaptable workforce the UK needs for the future and are committed to delivering an excellent teaching and learning experience. Russell Group universities teach strategically important subjects at the highest level, attracting the brightest students from all backgrounds with the potential to succeed in a high calibre academic environment. Our universities endow students with the skills needed to become the high-quality labour force and leaders required for the future development of the UK’s economy and society.

(a) Our universities train over 80% of the UK’s doctors and dentists and around half of mathematics and physical sciences graduates, helping to ensure the UK has the talent pool to meet the needs of employers.1 This is a key element of the health and wellbeing of industry, the economy and the population.

2.2. Access to world-leading research, links to business and local communities, and internationally diverse cohorts and partnerships all help to underpin the excellent education which students receive. Russell Group universities have also made substantial investments in world-class facilities to ensure they deliver an excellent student experience. In the last five years alone, our universities have invested £1.85 billion in boosting teaching and learning facilities, libraries, student accommodation, and university IT – all of which

1 2015/16 HESA Student record

VAL0041

benefit students directly (and this is part of a wider £9 billion capital investment commitment).

2.3. Opportunities to become directly involved in research enhance students’

ability to develop key employability skills, providing them with a competitive edge over their peers upon graduation. For example: over 300 students participated in the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme at Imperial in 2015; and at UCL, all students take part in an institution-wide initiative, ‘Connected Curriculum’, learning through participating in research and inquiry and working alongside the university’s world-class researchers.

2.4. To ensure provision is adapted for the modern workforce and delivers value to the taxpayer, Russell Group universities work closely with a wide range of employers and professional bodies to develop and modify courses – considering both course content and how courses are delivered. This includes working collaboratively on curriculum design and on the provision of placements, as well as careers advice. All our universities provide students with the opportunity to undertake work-based placements.

2.5. A number of Russell Group universities have been involved in the development and delivery of degree apprenticeships, with many taking a lead and pioneering the opportunities to develop alternative programmes in this space. For example: the University of Sheffield offers both higher and degree apprenticeships through its Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) Training Centre addressing vital engineering skills gap in industry and providing an alternative route into HE for young people; the Universities of Birmingham and Leeds have collaborated with PwC to launch a four-year degree apprenticeship in Computer Science in order to boost the UK’s technology skills base.

2.6. Student satisfaction and engagement in learning are very important to us and this is reflected in very low drop-out rates as well as in excellent outcomes for graduates - and so for the UK’s economy and society more broadly:

According to the latest NSS results (2017), overall student satisfaction across universities, colleges and alternative providers remains high at 84% and the Russell Group as a whole continue to receive satisfaction ratings (86%) which are above the sector average.

The recent Longitudinal DLHE results showed that over two thirds (67%) of Russell Group graduates agreed their HE course was good value for money compared with 65% for the sector.

For all full time first degree entrants the average HE continuation rate at Russell Group universities was 96.4% compared to 91.5% for other universities.

VAL0041

Of those in employment six months after graduating, 80% of leavers with a first degree from a Russell Group university were in professional employment compared to 68% for other universities.

Despite the rise in the number of people with degrees over the

past three decades, the earnings premium associated with higher education has remained in place. Russell Group graduates can expect to earn £3,000 a year more than the average 3.5 years after finishing their courses, and 14% more than graduates of non-Russell Group universities just six months after graduating.

Our universities also perform well in data released as part of the Longitudinal Education Outcomes dataset. Russell Group universities occupy the top 11 places in the graduate earnings table for law; in maths, our members occupy the top eight places; and, in computer science, our universities occupy the top seven places. There is a similar pattern in other subject areas too.2

2.7. Research has also found that graduates in the UK, aged 25 and over, were more likely to report better health, greater levels of trust in others, and greater political engagement including being more likely to vote and more likely to report that they believe they have a say in government. Graduates are also likely to enjoy more fulfilling careers: results from the recent Longitudinal DLHE survey show 88% of Russell Group graduates said their HE experience enabled them to solve problems in the workplace, while 86% said it enabled good decision-making. These broader outcomes result in positive impacts on the whole of society.

2.8. The value of a Russell Group degree is by no means exclusive to students, higher education is a public good and a highly skilled workforce is critical to the prosperity of the UK. Research has shown that an increase in graduate numbers leads to rising labour productivity and economic growth3 and the provision of STEM skills at graduate and postgraduate-level in particular leads to the delivery of innovative new technologies and products and improvements in health and quality of life for all citizens.

(a) Numbers of STEM graduates are strongly correlated with innovation: around 45% of graduates working in innovative firms in manufacturing and knowledge-intensive business service industries had a degree in a

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-for-all-subjects-by-university 3 Research by BIS in 2013 showed that at least one-third of the 34% increase in labour productivity between 1994 and 2005 can be attributed to the accumulation of graduate skills in the labour force and around 20% of UK economic growth from 1982 to 2005 came from increased graduate skills.

VAL0041

STEM subject, compared to only about 30% of graduates in non-innovative firms.4

(b) There is an association between hourly pay and the use of STEM skills in the workplace, showing that these skills help to increase earnings and productivity.

The value of our universities’ work with communities and facilitating social mobility

2.9. Active engagement with the public, community groups, schools and colleges, and local businesses is critical in enabling Russell Group universities to help drive local and regional growth and inclusion across the country. It helps them to produce excellent research, facilitate social mobility and address social issues – all of which underpin the future prosperity of the UK. For example:

Russell Group universities are stimulating awareness and discussion through access to their museums and galleries: almost 1.5 million people attended free public lectures at our universities last year and more than 5.5 million people attend exhibitions at museums and galleries located within our universities every year.

Our universities are supporting their students to undertake volunteering opportunities making a valuable contribution by working with charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations: Russell Group students are active volunteers giving around one million hours of their time to their local communities every year.

Throughout the year, our universities run and participate in a diverse range of events and activities including science, history, literature, sporting and music festivals aimed at engaging local people in the transformative power of education and ideas. For example, the York Festival of Ideas launched by the University of York in 2011 is now the largest free festival in the UK and provided 150 free events in 2017 working with 60 local and national partners.

Russell Group universities are also collaborating with their local communities on important research projects. Queen Mary University London has teamed up with King’s College and the University of Cambridge to conduct one of the world’s largest community-based genetics studies analysing the health of 100,000 local Pakistani and Bangladeshi people to identify better treatments to cure or prevent serious diseases.

Our universities’ community engagement activities support students to engage with local people as part of their studies, helping them to develop new skills and enhancing their student experience. For

4 Levy and Hopkins, 2013

VAL0041

example, the University of Edinburgh runs a free student-led law clinic providing legal services to the local community.

A number of our universities, including the University of Liverpool, also have well established lifelong learning centres offering hundreds of different courses to local residents both on and off campus.

2.10. Russell Group universities are committed to facilitating social mobility and widening participation. We want the most talented and able students – whatever their background – to study with us. Our universities are engaged in an enormous range of activities designed to encourage successful applications from students from disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds: from mentoring, summer schools and campus visits, to sponsoring schools and providing CPD for teachers.

(a) Russell Group universities work with around 8,000 schools, reaching many hundreds of thousands of young people across the UK every year.

(b) They are investing significantly in widening access, nearly doubling funding over the last five years for scholarships, fee waivers, bursaries and outreach activities aimed at the most disadvantaged.5

2.11. Our universities have made considerable progress in widening access and supporting disadvantaged students to succeed, and are evaluating the success of their activities to build a strong evidence base and design interventions which are highly effective. For example, the Manchester Access Programme at the University of Manchester has supported over 1,600 local students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress to the University, whilst the University of Newcastle’s PARTNERS programme which supports disadvantaged students to gain work experience and develop social capital has led to over a 10 percentage-point increase in participating students progressing to highly skilled jobs.

The value of our universities’ research, innovation and local leadership

2.12. Research not only enriches the educational experience that Russell Group university students enjoy but also delivers an invaluable benefit to the UK economy and society more broadly. Our universities’ research benefits the economy but also has an impressive impact on the health and quality of life of the nation and contributes to our rich cultural life and heritage. Our research has led to efficiency savings in public services, private sector productivity gains, the development of life-saving new treatments and drugs, the preservation of the UK’s culture and

5 In 2017/18 the 20 Russell Group universities in England alone will be investing £254 million in scholarships, fee waivers, bursaries and outreach activities aimed at the most disadvantaged – with additional investments being made across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

VAL0041

heritage and even advances in sport which has brought success in the Olympics and beyond.6

2.13. In particular, public investment in research has been shown to contribute to productivity growth: the funding that leading universities invest in research enables them to strengthen their links with businesses and deliver an average return of 20% to productivity growth in the private sector after three years.7

2.14. Our universities are also highly successful in the commercial exploitation of their research and have a wide range of partnerships with businesses of all sizes and in all sectors from financial services and creative industries to those involved right through manufacturing supply chains covering everything from food to aerospace. Our members attract external income of £2.4bn from business annually.

2.15. More broadly, our universities act as magnets for the creation of knowledge-intensive industry clusters, attracting research partners and inward investment. They also have extensive networks and partnerships with a range of actors, including local government, businesses across different sectors, charities and other parts of the education system. Our universities act as portals to the rest of the world, facilitating local-international linkages, bringing in ideas, talent, money and providing the basis for trade and other links. For example, the Glasgow University is investing £1bn to expand its campus over the next 10 years, revolutionizing traditional teaching methods and turning the west of the city into a tourist magnet. The university is working with museums and the national gallery to create a new cultural hub. The regeneration project will create around 2,500 jobs.

3. How our universities are accountable for their use of funds, maximizing the impact of their investments and delivering efficiencies

3.1. Our universities are working hard to maximise the impact of their investments and realise efficiencies across everything they do. They are maximising investments in capital expenditure by sharing facilities and equipment with each other, with other universities and with industry to enhance access and reduce duplication. For example:

The Universities of Bristol, Exeter and Cardiff have entered into a partnership with the University of Bath, as the GW4 Alliance, working together across all academic activity and collaborating in common areas of shared facilities, learning, training and development. This has enabled the development of a strategic approach to regional assets, identifying opportunities to develop these, and ensuring efficient procurement

6 For details see: http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5324/engines-of-growth.pdf 7 ‘The Economic Significance of the UK Science Base’, UKIRC (2014)

VAL0041

Similarly, the universities of Durham, Leeds, York, Sheffield, Lancaster, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle operate an equipment sharing system for northern universities, while Birmingham, Warwick and others lead this in the Midlands.

3.2. Universities are also making significant capital investments to modernise building stock and increase energy efficiency. For example, the University of Nottingham now has the world’s first zero carbon chemistry lab development (supported by GSK), and Glasgow University has reduced its total carbon emissions by more than 16% since 2010/11 across building energy use, transport, recycling and procurement.

3.3. As charities, universities have a remit to deliver for the public good. This also means they have a responsibility to remain accountable for their use of public funds and financial decisions are scrutinised carefully to ensure they provide value for money. In particular, Russell Group universities recognise the need to act responsibly in relation to senior staff pay. Robust and effective governance structures around senior remuneration are in place to ensure that salary levels for Vice-Chancellors are fair and justified.

3.4. Pay and conditions for senior staff are determined by remuneration committees, which form part of the formal governance arrangements of universities. The Higher Education Code of Governance published by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) sets out a framework of key values and practices on which the effective governance of UK HEIs should be based. Russell Group universities take their duty to adhere to CUC guidance seriously. For example, all remuneration committees have a majority of independent members, including lay members. The Vice-Chancellor and other senior staff members are not present for discussions on their own remuneration.

3.5. Our universities are working closely with the CUC and others in the sector to ensure there is adequate guidance for university governing bodies around senior staff remuneration. They are committed to upholding the principles of fair pay and seek to share and highlight their experience and examples best practice.

3.6. Russell Group universities are large, complex, multi-faceted organisations operating in a fiercely competitive international market for the best research, teaching and leadership talent. The average Russell Group University has over 25,000 students, and the 24 Russell Group universities alone educate and train 27% of all students in the UK, and 36% of post-graduate students. Our institutions are major employers in their regions, employing on average over 6,300 full-time equivalent staff, with an average turnover of £700 million.

3.7. Russell Group universities must be able to recruit, retain and reward outstanding individuals of the quality and talent needed to lead large world-class institutions. Strong and effective leadership in turn supports our universities to generate critical economic growth and jobs in the regions and deliver outstanding teaching and research. Russell Group universities

VAL0041

add tens of billions of pounds to the economy every year and help to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in science and innovation.

4. Priorities for the future regulatory and funding system

4.1. To continue to deliver the wide range of economic and social benefits to students, taxpayers and local communities described above, universities need a sustainable base of funding and a regulatory environment which supports the continued delivery of high quality education, research and innovation in a diverse HE sector.

A sustainable fees and funding system

4.2. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the student finance system is fair and affordable, and that student’s benefit from a high-quality experience at university. The existing fees and loan system has been highly beneficial to students, taxpayers (and the Government) and universities alike. The system:

a. Is affordable for students as they do not have to pay upfront for tuition costs and all are able to access at least some maintenance support - with additional help from individual universities through bursaries and fee-waivers.

b. Has enabled record numbers of students to enter higher education including more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.8

c. Is progressive, ensuring graduates are not required to pay back more than they can afford with repayments in proportion to their salaries over the minimum repayment threshold. Many students also have at least some of their debt actively written off by the Government after 30 years ensuring that there is a balanced contribution between the student and the taxpayer.

d. Is starting to provide a sustainable base of funding for universities meaning they can offer a diverse range of courses with high quality teaching and learning experiences, cutting-edge facilities and opportunities for students to do everything from hands-on research to international placements and collaborative work with local communities and business. To note: before fees were introduced universities were historically underfunded with the unit of resource per student declining substantially over time – growth in student numbers between 1989-90 and 1997-98 resulted in a 30% reduction in the unit of resource, which

8 UCAS figures indicate disadvantaged 18-year-olds (POLAR2 quintile 1) were 60% more likely to enter higher education in 2014 than they were in 2006 before higher fees were introduced.

VAL0041

had knock-on consequences for teaching quality and the overall learning experience universities could offer.

e. Recognizes the public returns to the UK from higher education through the government subsidy (currently 35% of costs through the loan write-off and additional support for high cost subjects) with the proportion of student loans which the government expects to be written-off naturally higher amongst low earning graduates as these individuals pay less of their student loan back.

4.3. Whilst we recognise that the system may not be perfect, any changes which might be considered should be thought through very carefully before being introduced to ensure that the range of benefits for students, taxpayers and universities (as described above) are not lost. We look forward to engaging with the recently announced review of university funding and student finance to ensure that the fees and funding system continues to work to underpin investment in high quality teaching and learning and capital investment, which is so critical to delivering an excellent student experience.

4.4. It is also important to note the vital role international students play in supporting the sustainability of UK higher education for home students. Without international students very many strategically important programmes would not be financially sustainable and therefore would not be available to home students. Research activities would also be significantly affected.

4.5. Overseas students bring a wide range of social and cultural benefits to the UK and our universities which advantage domestic students by enriching the research and learning environment and helping home students develop internationally-relevant skills. Increasingly, our future business leaders, scientists and other professionals will need to have gained that international dimension as part of their grounding for careers that will involve both international competition and cooperation.

4.6. Any future immigration system must therefore support universities to continue to attract overseas students who play such a critical role in driving economic growth and productivity gains and are essential in supporting a high-quality teaching and learning experience for home students.

A new regulatory regime

4.7. A number of very significant reforms to HE regulation have been introduced in recent months through the Higher Education and Research Act and the creation of the Office for Students, as well as the development of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

4.8. The Government’s stated intention is to put student choice at the heart of sector regulation, a principle which fits with our own commitment. In

VAL0041

protecting the interests of students, consideration should be given to the role of students as partners in their own education. Interpreting the relationship between students and providers as a simple transactional one could lead to detrimental outcomes and would ignore the importance of students’ own engagement in their studies through independent learning which is fundamental to achieving successful outcomes.

4.9. With this in mind, the new Office for Students should:

(a) Respect the autonomy of institutions recognising and supporting the distinctive contribution and mission of different institutions. Protecting institutional autonomy will help to underpin the provision of quality education and maintain the high degree of diversity across the sector, supporting greater student choice, competition, collaboration and the international competitiveness of UK higher education.

(b) Maintain a robust baseline on quality, good governance and financial sustainability to protect students and take a risk-based and proportionate approach to the design and implementation of regulation, recognising providers with a good track-record of quality and sustainability over many years.

(c) Avoid taking a narrow, literal approach to regulation and consider how to promote the health of UK HE as a whole. The needs of students cannot reasonably be separated from the needs of HEIs – without a sustainable HE sector with high quality staff, excellent research, links to businesses and local communities, international partnerships, students and staff, etc. the quality of the education students receive will be diminished.

(d) Ensure efficiency is embedded into the operation of the regulator as well as awareness of the broader regulatory and funding environment in which providers operate. The OfS should report to the sector annually on the cost and burden of regulation. It should also commit to work with other regulators to ensure that the regulatory burden is minimised, proportionate, and properly considered. A map of regulators and their responsibilities should be updated annually so that alignment between the responsibilities of regulators and their efficiency can be maintained.

October 2017

VAL0008

Written Evidence submitted by Mr Samuel Brook

A letter to the government from a disgruntled graduate of 2016

Summary

Graduates earning £41,886 will repay a nominal sum of £112,090.17, adjusted for inflation the sum is £79,916.56. Over 2x the value of their loan.

Anybody beginning their career with a starting salary above £28,900 will pay more than the amount they borrowed.

At this moment in time pretty much all graduates are paying more in interest than it costs the government to fund. For those earning over £41,000 it’s a 3.5% surplus.

1.1 Introduction

1.2 In the past couple of months nearly every part of the media has reported

on the sudden jump in interest rates on student debt due to occur in September of this year. The current loan structure takes the Retail Price Index (RPI) figure for March and then applies it for a full year from September to August. On Tuesday the 11th of April the RPI figure for March was released, showing RPI to be 3.1%. What this means for students/graduates taking loans after the 1st of September 2012 is shown below:

Students still studying will incur an interest on debt of 6.1% (RPI+3%). Graduates earning less than £21,000 will incur an interest on debt of

3.1% (RPI). Graduates earning between £21,000 and £41,000 will incur an interest on

debt based on a sliding scale between 3.1% and 6.1% (RPI to RPI+3%). Graduates earning over £41,000 will incur an interest on debt of 6.1%

(RPI+3%).

1.3 Most of the news articles focused on how Brexit had influenced this story. Of course, a substantial cost push as a result of sterling’s depreciation following Brexit has been the primary driver of higher levels of inflation. The trouble with this however is that it misses the actual problem that the repayment system is flawed and rising inflation has merely brought these flaws back to our attention. Worryingly for students and graduates alike, RPI at these levels isn’t out of the ordinary. 3.1% much better represents RPI’s historic averagei rather than the 1 and 2% figures we became accustomed to in 2015/16. What this means is that interest rates similar to those above are expected and students are going to have to get used to paying them. It’s implications on the future of UK student loans are concerning and are illustrated in an example below:

1.4 £41,000 Graduate

A graduate left university in 2016 and earns £41,000 a year. They took a £9000 student loan and the basic maintenance loan for 3ii years of study.

VAL0008

With the interest already accrued throughout their time at university, as of April 2017 their student debt stands at roughly £42,000iii. As per the interest rate schedule their £41,000 yearly earnings causes their level of debt to increase every year by 6.1%, or £2,562. Under the current system they will repay (£41,000-£21,000 = £20,000x0.09% =) £1,800 per year. This means that a graduate earning £41,000 will see their debt increase by £762, despite paying 5.8iv% of their disposable income to the student loans company. It’s little wonder that research for the IFS and Sutton Trust found that nearly 75% of students in England will never repay their student loansv. Making a few simple assumptions it is possible to plot a projected repayment schedule for this prospective graduate as well as others on different starting salaries:

1.5 Graduate Repayment

Making a few simple and realistic assumptions it’s possible to calculate the estimated size of a student’s repayment over the course of their lifetime. These assumptions are as follows:

The repayment threshold is assumed to be constant until September 2021

as per George Osborne’s retrospective freezevi on the £21,000 level. After which it will rise in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Students repay 9% of earnings above this level.

CPI is assumed to be 2% a year as per the Bank of England’s inflation target. When repayments are adjusted for inflation I use CPI.

RPI used for the loan schedule is assumed to be 1.6% until August 2017 where it changes to the aforementioned 6.1% level until August 2018 after which it remains constant at the 30 year historic average, 3.4%.

Earnings growth for all graduates is assumed to be 3% a year. Equivalent to a rate of 1% in real terms.

No debt is repaid early. Graduates are in work for the full 30 years of their repayment. The interest rate paid moves on a sliding scale as per the loan schedule

between £21,000 & £41,000. These two levels move up with CPI after 2021 and the 3% increase in interest rates stays evenly spaced between them.

If the debt isn’t repaid within 30years it is written off as per current terms.

1.6 These assumptions produce an interesting profile for debt repayment

among graduates. 13 accurate data points are plotted on the graph below and other earning start points can be estimated reasonably accurately through interpolation.

VAL0008

1.7 The x-axis represents a graduates starting salary in 2017 that is assumed to rise in nominal terms by 3% a year for the 30 years of loan repayment. The y-axis represents the total amount repaid by a student throughout their lifetime. The purple line is total repayments in nominal terms, the turquoise line is adjusted for CPI and the light blue line is the amount that the government will have to write off per student in 30 years.

1.8 Under these assumptions the student who repays the most over their

lifetime is a graduate who leaves university and has a starting salary of £41,886. They repay the most because their last repayment is made 30 years after the loans are made, the day that student debt would otherwise be written off. Graduates whose starting salary is less than £41,886 will have a certain amount of debt written off so will pay less overall. Graduates whose starting salary is more than £41,886 will pay their debt back early, therefore incurring less interest and a lower overall total. Graduates earning £41,886 will repay a nominal sum of £112,090.17, adjusted for inflation the sum is £79,916.56. The 2017 value of loans taken by this student will have been very close to £38,500 (see appendix), so their total repayment in real terms is more than double the value of the loan they received. How this total repayment is reached is plotted in the graph below:

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Loan Repayment

Nominal Repayment CPI Adjusted Repayment Outstanding Debt

VAL0008

1.9 Clearly earnings jump around more than the smooth trajectory assumed and many of the variables used to calculate these sums are highly uncertain especially 30 years into the future. But the assumptions made are by no means unrealistic.

1.10 Looking back at the ‘loan repayment’ graph it is interestingly a graduate

who begins their career earning £28,900 who will repay a total adjusted for inflation of £38,500vii (The actual sum of their loan). Therefore, anybody beginning their career with a starting salary above £28,900 will pay more than the amount they loaned out. The government will make money from these graduates. High flyers 2016 reportviii showed that the median graduate starting salary in the UK was £30,000. Thus more than half of graduates will pay the government more in real terms than they borrowed.

1.11 It’s also worth noting the huge levels of debt that the government will

‘write off’ in 30 years’ time. The same graduate starting on a salary of £28,900 would have £104,166.17 written off at the end of their loan period, despite having already repaid the fair value of their loan. They would be liable for this amount up until the 30 year deadline, so if this graduate’s pay scale were to increase rapidly before their debt was written off, huge repayments could be made for many years without getting close to paying off their debt.

2. Build-up of debt

2.1 The reason behind such substantial debts are twofold. Firstly, £9000 fees.

Incredibly high lump sum loans every year ensures a high nominal amount of debt upon leaving university. For most, this provides terrible value for money. From my own experience £9000 afforded me 250 hours of contact time (high by most courses standards). 220 of those hours were alongside 349 other students, meaning a 1 hour lecture generated a revenue of £18,000 for the university. Of course there are additional costs

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

01/0

3/20

1701

/04/

2018

01/0

5/20

19

01/0

6/20

2001

/07/

2021

01/0

8/20

2201

/09/

2023

01/1

0/20

24

01/1

1/20

2501

/12/

2026

01/0

1/20

28

01/0

2/20

2901

/03/

2030

01/0

4/20

3101

/05/

2032

01/0

6/20

33

01/0

7/20

3401

/08/

2035

01/0

9/20

3601

/10/

2037

01/1

1/20

38

01/1

2/20

3901

/01/

2041

01/0

2/20

42

01/0

3/20

4301

/04/

2044

01/0

5/20

4501

/06/

2046

£41,886 Repayment Schedule

Debt Earnings Nominal Repayment CPI Adjusted Repayment

VAL0008

to the salary of the lecturer, but an hourly rate of anywhere near £18,000 is alarming.

2.2 Secondly, and rather less transparently, very high interest rates. The

Browne Report which was the basis for the radical fee shake up post 2012 suggested that the interest rate on loans would reflect the cost of government borrowing, something they quoted as being RPI+2.2%ix. It’s very apparent that interest rates are well below this now, but even in 2010 when the report was published RPI+2.2% was a generous estimation. Interest rates well above the rate of inflation ensure total repayments larger than their original value, and interest rates well above the governments cost of borrowing ensure that the government makes substantial sums of money off anyone who repays all or most of their student loan. A more realistic level of government borrowing is illustrated below.

3. Government Borrowing

3.1 The Debt Management Office (DMO), responsible for issuing and managing the government’s debt, issues two forms of bond. Conventionalx, at this moment in time 30y conventional bonds have a yield of 1.79% and index linkedxi which at the most recent issue had a yield of RPI+0.00125%. The government writes off what they describe as the Resource and Budgeting (RAB) charge every year. This is the amount of student loans in any given year that they expect never to be repaid. This impairment cost is of great importance to national accounts and a large amount of debate surrounds the level set. For the purposes of this letter however we’ll use Jo Johnson’s stated level of 25%xii.

3.2 It would make sense for the DMO to fund that 25% for 30years with

conventional bonds at 1.79% and then facilitate the remaining loan schedule with index linked bonds at a rate of RPI+0.00125%. This puts the government’s average cost of borrowing at around 2.5-3%. Thus, at this moment in time pretty much all graduates are paying more in interest than it costs the government to fund. For those earning over £41,000 it’s a 3.5% surplus. High interest rates compound a very large nominal total leaving an unmanageable amount of debt.

4. Common Arguments for, and justifications of the current system

‘Those paying back the most are the richest in society and should pay more for their university education.’ I have a couple of problems with this logic:

1. Those graduates will also be paying more in tax. With a fair progressive tax system higher earners should pay more and part of this should be used to fund higher education. As it stands higher earners are not only repaying the value of their loan but also an amount of interest that the government profits from, this is in effect an additional tax so these graduates are being taxed twice.

VAL0008

2. This only applies to students who actually have to take out the student loan. Uptake of maintenance and tuition loans is roughly 90%xiii of the student population. The most probable reason for not taking any loans is because wealthy parents pay the fees upfront. So those who have to take loans and eventually repay their debt are the highest achievers (in monetary terms) of a cohort who needed financial support to go to university. What does this say to the aspirations of those who come from backgrounds without excessive wealth, who go to university only made possible by their student loan, who get a good job and pay thousands of pounds in tax? If this is a model of social mobility and progress for the country, it is severely hampered by the state of student debt. Meanwhile those privileged enough to have parents who could afford to pay student fees, thereby avoiding the loans, maintain their disposable income and avoid this double taxation altogether.

3. Another argument is that ‘all this information is available to students, if

they think it’s too expensive then they shouldn’t go to university.’ This is also fundamentally flawed. University in the UK is effectively a monopoly on jobs, there are very few opportunities to get a good job without a degree, with the vast majority of companies making a degree a pre-requisite for work. Therefore university isn’t really a choice, people have to go whatever the cost. High fees are justified by ‘increased expected future earnings’ as a result of university. Instead it’s highly likely the majority of increased expected future earnings are not the result of gains made through university teaching but are instead due to the inherent ability of those who attend university.

4. University only marginally increases skills and therefore the amount graduates can earn, but because their students are destined to earn high incomes and universities hold the monopoly on jobs they can extract far higher fees than would be justified by the quality of teaching received by students. In addition, the information surrounding loan repayment is murky at best and because it requires 18 year olds to consider their life for the next 33 years the whole predicament is very difficult to consider properly.

5. Retrospective changes to student loans

5.1 Not only does the current system seem misguided but there is no guarantee it won’t get any worse. If anything, the precedent set by George Osborne makes it seem likely that terms will change unfavourably for students again in the future. As the terms of ‘plan 2xiv’ loans are not binding in law they can quite easily be altered if the government feels the loan portfolio is underperforming. How can a prospective student make an informed choice about whether they should attend university or not when there’s a degree of uncertainty about what the term of their loan will be in the future. There is a lengthy debate already surrounding this topic but a good source of interesting information is the website Critical Educationxv.

6. Sale of Student Debt

VAL0008

6.1 All the problems outlined above are either compounded by or are the

direct result of the government’s desire to sell the student loan book. The reason for this is that rather than acting in the interest of young people and properly investing in the future of the economy, the government seems stuck in a narrow vision of ‘how do we make student loans more attractive for private sale’.

6.2 So why does the government so desperately want to sell? Reduction of

debt is the answer. As student loans are deemed an ‘illiquid asset’ in national accounts, the future value of their repayment is not counted as a prospective revenue to offset the debt raised to finance loans. Therefore the full value of distributed loans sit on national accounts as debt until they are either repaid or the government finds a way to sell them off to recoup some of the cash. For example in the 2015-16 financial year the government loaned £12bnxvi to students. According to the governments RAB charge they anticipate that all but 25% of this total will eventually be repaid. In the yearly Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) accounts this is recorded as a £3bn cost.

6.3 In the Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) accounts however, the whole £12bn

is recorded as debt, despite the fact that most will be repaid in the future. This means statistics such as the Debt/GDP ratio may look unfairly high. But rather than alter the way the stats are presented (the true problem) it seems the government would prefer to sell the debt to get it off the books altogether. If they were to sell the £12bn worth of loans for say £8bn, they would solidify a £4bn cost, which would increase the deficit by £1bn (amount above the RAB charge) but reduce the level of debt by £8bn. This is really just an accounting fudge and the price paid to achieve this nothingness would be high:

Selling loans and placing them in the hands of institutional investors could

lead to aggressive loan recoupment tactics. The profits that the government is due to make from higher earners will

instead be made by private institutions. Companies profiting at the expense of young people, something that I’m sure doesn’t sit well with many.

Most news sources believe the government would get a poor deal when selling student loansxvii. They’re hard to value and won’t pay out lucratively for a long period of time so the government will have to give up a lot of value to shift them from their books.

Selling loans removes a fantastic incentive structure that we currently have. It’s in the government’s best interest to make long term investments so as to create jobs and strong economic prospects well into the future so the chance of loan repayment is higher.

6.4 Selling loans wouldn’t materially improve the financial picture of the UK, after all, as a long term investment a large part of them will be repaid. But it would provide a financial fudge, reducing the level of debt on paper now so that statistics like the debt to GDP ratio look more favourable. Simply put, this is government short termism.

VAL0008

7. Suggested Changes

7.1 Change the interest rate on student loans to RPI/CPI. This would much more accurately represent the government’s cost of borrowing and ensure that students repay a fair amount of debt over the course of their repayment. In real terms this would mean not having to pay more than they borrowed, avoiding the effective ‘double taxation’.

7.2 Reduce feesxviii. Universities do not provide value for money for students and fees should be reduced to reflect this. The government should do more to ring-fence money from fees (as paid for by students) for teaching and avoid it being spent on research. If the government wants to fund research at universities it can do so, however students at those universities should not provide huge subsidies for something that doesn’t materially affect them. Reducing fees doesn’t have to mean increased government spending, instead it could mean more pressure on university budgets. This trade-off is a choice for governments, at the moment they unfairly burden students.

7.3 Remove students from immigration numbers. Removing students from immigration numbers would allow the government to champion foreign students (who pay very high fees) without the Brexit styled backlash on immigration figures. This would bring large amounts of additional revenue to UK universities.

7.4 Compile statistics on individual universities percentage repayment. It would be very easy to obtain information on how much students at each institution borrow and through the PAYE system their repayments could be linked to certain institutions. By compiling these statistics you could gain a clear picture of which institutions enable graduates to repay their debt. From this you could then create more robust incentive structures for universities:

7.5 Incentivise universities based on the amount of money students at their institutions repay. University funding is currently a very easy ridexix. Institutions need to be incentivised more to provide proper value for money for students or face the risk of reduced revenues, as many school leavers effectively have to attend university this is a trade-off universities don’t currently experience. Initial ideas would be to partially base the amount universities could charge in fees on the percentage repayment of their student’s loans. Another suggestion would be to only allow universities to hold future endowments as student debt. Whilst both have their imperfections, ideas like this would see universities incentivised to give the best education to their students which in turn should assist loan repayment.

7.6 Fix a fairer revised schedule in law. The fact that governments, and potentially in the future private institutions, could tamper retrospectively with loans is alarming. This should be prevented from happening.

7.7 Abandon any plans to sell off the student loan book. Selling loans would be a waste of taxpayer money and would undermine the security of

VAL0008

student’s future repayments. The government should stop plans to sell student loans immediately. Instead the government should work with the OBR to produce debt forecasts that accurately represent the value of the student loan book. To remove government incentives to have the RAB charge as low as possible, this responsibility should be devolved to the OBR.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Debate around the structure and funding of higher education is far from

resolved. Fundamental arguments not fully discussed in this essay exist, namely: how many students should be going to university? What proportion of higher education should be publicly funded? Is university just a signalling method to employers or does human capital theory prevail? Are we doing enough outside of university to offer viable alternative routes to the workplace? Should education be free? These are serious issues without perfect answers that deserve proper debate. Doing so should hopefully have a positive impact on future government policy.

8.2 Whilst it’s impossible not to touch on some of these higher level issues,

this essay set out to expose some of the flaws in our current system without becoming entangled in one of the debates above. What is clear, is that if unchanged our current system is set to pile a debilitating burden on future generations for the vast majority of their working life.

8.3 There are currently only two cohorts of students repaying their student

loans through the ‘plan 2’ repayment scheme. As this increases year on year, understanding of its unfairness will grow and public opinion will mount against the scheme (if it isn’t stacked against it already). To pre-empt growing concern, the government should conduct a fresh review of higher education funding with the aim of making the current system fairer and work in the interests of young people’s futures.

8.4 Student loans are taken out by 18 year olds and their consequences are

easily forgotten. As students get older, the burden it places on their lives will become more apparent. With a better understanding of the overall picture the government should act in their interests now to avoid inevitable public outrage later.

Appendix 1xx

VAL0008

2013/14 - Tuition loan of £9,000 & Maintenance Loan of £3,600. Adjusted to 2017 prices by multiplying by following years CPI: (9000+3600) x 1.005 x 1.002 x 1.016 = £12,891.34 2014/15 - Tuition loan of £9,000 & Maintenance Loan of £3,600. Adjusted to 2017 prices by multiplying by following years CPI: (9000+3600) x 1.002 x 1.016 = £12827.20 2015/16 - Tuition loan of £9,000 & Maintenance Loan of £3,600. Adjusted to 2017 prices by multiplying by following years CPI: (9000+3600) x 1.016 = £12801.60 Summing the 3 years’ worth of loans the total 2017 value is £38,520.14. Endnotes

i 3.4% historic average since 1986. ii With many degrees moving to 4 years the debt burden grows far larger. iii With the removal of student grants, students from low income families will leave university with significantly higher debts as they have to take loans of up to £7000. Also, inflation has been historically low for the past 3 years, further generations of graduates will have higher debts upon leaving university. iv In the 2017/18 tax year, earnings of £41,000 equate to a take home pay of £31,161. 1800/31161=0.0578 v http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/graduates-paying-student-loans-50s-ifssutton-trust/ vi For more information see: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2015/11/autumn-statement-2015-hidden-retrospective-hike-in-student-loans-repayments-a-disgrace vii £54,596.62 nominal repayment. viii https://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2016/graduate_market/GMReport16.pdf ix Page 35: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422565/bis-10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf x A liability of the government which guarantees to pay the holder of the gilt a fixed cash payment every 6 months until the maturity date, at which point the holder receives the final coupon payment and the return of the principle. For example, an investor who holds £1000 nominal of 1.5% treasury gilt 2047 will receive two coupon payments of £7.50 on 22 January and 22 July every year until 2047.

VAL0008

xi Semi-annual coupon payments and the principle are adjusted in line with the UK Retail Price Index. For example 0.5% Index Linked Treasury gilt 2050 pays a real coupon (over inflation) of 0.25% twice a year. xii http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-01-27/24589/ xiii Student Loan Statistics. Paul Bolton. Briefing Paper. Number 1079, 2 December 2016. xiv The revised fee structure following recommendations from the 2010 Browne Report which was applied to students starting a new course at university after September 2012. xv https://andrewmcgettigan.org/student-loans-campaign/ xvi http://www.slc.co.uk/media/8444/slcsfr052016.pdf xvii http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21716635-it-unlikely-get-good-deal-british-government-plans-sell-part-student?zid=316&ah=2f6fb672faf113fdd3b11cd1b1bf8a77 xviii I accept that some courses, for example most sciences, cost a significant amount more to teach due to extra contact time and equipment etc. This justifies higher fees. Of course the government can’t reduce fees for other subjects and keep them high for sciences as this would reduce the incentive to pursue science, clearly something the government wouldn’t be keen on. Instead, they should reduce fees across the board and invest more in high cost subjects that the government values greatly. xix ‘Universities have, on average, seen an increase in resources per undergraduate student as a result of this change. On average, we estimate that they received £22,143 per student (£12,012 through teaching grants and £11,522 through tuition fees) under the old system, compared with £28,250 per student (£2,010 through teaching grants and £27,299 through tuition fees) under the new system.’ - https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r93.pdf. Claire Crawford. xx CPI figures taken from http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx October 2017

VAL0037

Written Evidence submitted by Southampton Solent University We are pleased to provide our response to the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into ‘Value for money in higher education’. We have provided responses to the following questions:

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data.

If you have any questions or require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact my colleague, louise.cordell@solent.ac.uk. Yours faithfully, Professor Graham Baldwin Vice-Chancellor Southampton Solent University Executive summary

Southampton Solent University (“Solent”) demonstrates the effectiveness of universities in supporting social justice by promoting access to higher education to socially disadvantaged groups who typically might not consider university.

Located within an area characterised by below average progression rates to HE, Solent has developed a range of successful widening participation initiatives, working extensively with local schools and colleges to help raise attainment levels and to encourage those with the ability and aptitude to apply to university.

In addition to supporting students’ academic and professional achievements, the University has also designed tools to help students to develop their own social and psychological capital: a need identified by the students themselves.

There is clear evidence that by participating in higher education and engaging with the learning opportunities offered by the University, the social capital and employment prospects of our graduates are improved, representing real value to students.

VAL0037 Detailed responses 1. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students 1.1. Universities play a key role in supporting social justice and social

mobility. Successive governments have emphasised the importance of equality of access to, and participation in, higher education. National reports (e.g. HEFCE 20131, UCAS 20162), however, note that the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged groups remains wide and continues to be an intractable problem in much of the sector. Solent has worked successfully with students from all backgrounds, significant proportions of whom have multiple demographic characteristics that each make access to successful higher education challenging.

1.2. Solent's commitment to widening participation is embedded in our mission: We are dedicated to the pursuit of excellent university education that enables learners from all backgrounds to become enterprising citizens and responsible leaders, while also promoting economic and social prosperity for the communities we serve.

1.3. This is also reflected in our student population: around 70% of Solent students identify themselves as the first in their family to attend university3 and 2015-16 UK performance indicators showed that 97.7% of young entrants to full time first degrees were from state schools, and 15.4% were from low participation neighbourhoods4. Both of these indicators exceeded sector benchmarks.

1.4. The University has developed a range of initiatives and projects to widen participation, including schemes to attract those with no family history of higher education. We also work extensively with local primary and secondary schools and colleges to help raise attainment levels and to encourage those with the ability and aptitude, to apply to university.

1 HEFCE Trends in young participation in higher education, 2013: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201328/ 2 UCAS End of Cycle Report, 2016: https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f 3 Southampton Solent University internal student survey 4 HESA UK Performance Indicators 2015/16: Widening Participation, 2017: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/widening-participation

VAL0037 1.5. We also provide local schools and colleges with opportunities for

their students to engage in higher education. These include: school and college visits, graduate mentors for students, subject masterclasses, summer schools, sport in schools and the community and university taster days.

1.6. Solent works with the Southern Policy Centre (SPC) alongside schools, local authorities, employers and Local Enterprise Partnerships to understand and address key regional issues including low participation in higher education and the requirement for skills development. Solent’s access agreement

1.7. Our 2018/19 access agreement sets out our plans for continuing to widen participation, support access to higher education, reach out to students from non-traditional backgrounds and help all students to achieve their goals. It can be accessed here: https://www.solent.ac.uk/about/documents/solent-access-agreement-18-19.pdf

Supporting white working class males to achieve

1.8. The annual Office for Fair Access (OFFA) report released in August 20175 highlighted Solent’s leading work in supporting white males from disadvantaged backgrounds. Independent research was commissioned into the barriers and challenges faced by white British students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds regarding participation in higher education. Findings suggest that poor attainment, ineffective decision making regarding post-16 choices and lack of understanding of the benefits of higher education to social mobility are factors that impact upon participation rates.

1.9. As a result of this research a project involving groups of disadvantaged pupils is planned. It will involve providing regular, tracked and monitored interventions for the targeted pupils over the course of Year 7 and 8, focussing on career aspirations, benefits of higher education in terms of social mobility and supporting attainment in order to reach their potential. Education, career and progression action plans will support the tracking and monitoring of the students to measure the impact of the interventions and further tracking will be provided by the Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) database service. Solent will be

5 OFFA Access Agreements for 2018/19: Key Statistics and Analysis: https://www.offa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Access-agreement-2018-19-key-facts-revised-OFFA-201708.pdf

VAL0037 sharing the outcomes of this work and resulting recommendations and best practice.

1.10. During 2015/16 (the most recent year with full data available) we undertook more than 50 widening participation and access activities with schools in quintile 1 postcodes. We have engaged with approximately 1,194 students to date, all of whom will be tracked by the Higher Education Access Tracker (HEAT) to enable ongoing evaluation and monitoring of progress. We received feedback from 485 pupils demonstrating the positive outcomes of the activities such as increased knowledge and confidence regarding understanding their individual educational and career paths and discovering their own particular learning styles, essential to supporting attainment in school. FE collaboration

1.11. The proportion of young people from the Solent LEP area progressing to HE is lower than the national average. Educational underachievement is particularly acute in Southampton, resulting in skills deficits detrimental to the development of the local and regional economies.

1.12. The University is a committed partner of the Southampton Education Forum (SEF) comprising local secondary head teachers, college principals and both universities in Southampton. The Forum’s objectives are to enhance the educational opportunities within Southampton, encourage the participation and success of local young people and develop the economic viability of the city.

1.13. Solent University and City College Southampton are discussing the establishment of the Southampton Education Quarter through the potential merger of the two institutions. One of the key aims of this development is to promote educational progression through the provision of a variety of pathways including apprenticeships in curriculum areas strongly aligned to local and regional economic development. Closing the attainment gap – a collaborative HEFCE funded project

1.14. Earlier in 2017, Solent received funding from HEFCE for a two-year collaborative project led by the University of Derby, and working with the University of West London, to address barriers to student attainment. This work will benefit those student groups affected by differential outcomes highlighted in previous HEFCE research, particularly black and minority ethnic students and also students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and disabled students (including those presenting with mental health issues and specific learning difficulties).

VAL0037

2. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

2.1. A high proportion of Solent students (70%) report that they are the

first in their family to attend university. Additionally, many of our most highly qualified students join us with BTEC qualifications (an average of 48.5% over the last three years, compared with a sector average of 26.7%), and the University recruits a higher than average proportion of students from state schools and from lower socio-economic classes (SEC). These demographics show clearly that Solent is an inclusive University that offers opportunities to students who traditionally might not consider higher education as an option.

2.2. As a result of the low-tariff, non-HE backgrounds that many of our students come from, students often arrive at Solent without the social networks of many of their contemporaries from more socially advantaged backgrounds. Indeed, internal employability evaluations have identified a need among students to build confidence and professional networks. This has shaped the University’s approach to developing students’ social capital and employability.

2.3. Examples of these opportunities include: 2.3.1. Providing students with industry experience across the academic

portfolio, with the aim of developing skills, building professional contacts, and preparing for post-university careers. All new courses and existing course developments must clearly articulate how employability, including real-world learning, is embedded and appropriate, and this is assessed by a university approval panel. External examiners have consistently commended the embedding of real-world learning as a leading strength of the University’s provision, observing that many Solent students accordingly gain a ‘distinctive edge’ in employability. The 2013 QAA Institutional Review6 also praised the ‘extensive use of real-world learning’ and the ‘demonstrable impact’ that it has on students.

2.3.2. 48% of unit assessments have industry focused simulated or live client brief based exercises to facilitate the applied education process for real life problem-solving,ensuring that all students will develop confidence in using their professional skills. Solent has longstanding and strong relationships with professional, statutory and regulatory bodies with accreditation embedded within curriculum design

6 Southampton Solent University Institutional Review by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, June 2013: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/ReviewsAndReports/Documents/Southampton%20Solent%20University/Southampton-Solent-University-IRENI-13.pdf

VAL0037 whenever appropriate. The University has a consistent record of excellent outcomes from PSRB recognition exercises, evidenced by the repeated award of maximum lengths of recognition.

2.3.3. In 2011 the University established Solent Creatives, an in-house agency that matches creative students to real-world, paid freelance projects. Over the last three years, 685 new businesses have commissioned 1,222 work projects, providing over 1,800 students with invaluable experience and professional contacts.

2.3.4. Solent developed the Employability Self-Evaluation (ESE), based on the Capital Compass Model7 which enables students to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses in relation to their human, social and psychological capital. This has also been embedded into the curriculum to encourage students to take control of their career planning and enhance their confidence in their career choices. The ESE test has been used over the last three years and research is now underway to look at the potential of using it as a diagnostic tool.

2.3.5. Solent offers professional mentoring to final year students and recent graduates to help them build confidence and increase their access to professional networks. The scheme matches students with a mentor in the appropriate industry, who provides employment related practical advice, skills and industry specific information. Additionally, Solent offers schemes for graduates that provide paid experience within a professional setting. This year the University is offering 55 six or twelve month graduate internships and also 30 four-week micro-internships to provide experience and support to unemployed graduates.

2.4. The evidence that initiatives such as these enhance employment prospects and outcomes is clear, with multiple recent examples of employment success that demonstrate how value has been added to students’ employment and earning potential: 2.4.1. The University was ranked the 12th best British university for

boosting graduate earnings. The Economist8 used data from the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO), which shows employment and earnings outcomes one, three, and five years after graduates have left their institutions, to rank universities on their ‘value added’ to graduate earnings. Solent was ranked 12th out of 124, with graduates earning £24,810 five years after leaving university (£1,993 more than the expected earnings).

7 The Solent Capital Compass Model of Employability, 2013: http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/2567/8 The Economist, Which British universities do most to boost graduate salaries?, August 2017: https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21726100-our-new-guide-answers-which-british-universities-do-most-boost-graduate-salaries

VAL0037

2.4.2. Subject-level LEO data shows that when comparing Solent graduates’ median earnings to those of institutions in the same prior attainment category, Solent ranked in the top 50% for all subject areas, and in the top 10 for six subject areas.

2.4.3. The University was ranked ninth in the sector for the number of graduate start-ups, according to the Higher Education - Business Community Interaction survey (HE-BCI, 2015-169). This achievement has been recognised in the 2017 Times Higher Education (THE) Awards, with the University shortlisted in the Outstanding University Entrepreneur Award for our expertise in innovation and enterprise, increasing the percentage of graduates not only in professional or managerial employment, but also freelance activities and business start-ups.

2.4.4. Solent graduates are some of the most employable in the country, with the latest HESA Employability Performance Indicator showing that 95.2% of graduates are in employment or further study six months after leaving10, the 42nd highest rate in the sector. This rate was 2.4% higher than the benchmark set for the University.

2.5. It is clear from these examples that Solent graduates are

succeeding in the early stages of their careers, having benefitted from the learning that takes place throughout their higher education experience. This is the value that Solent adds for students who typically might not have accessed these opportunities and learning.

2.6. The University does not only represent value for money for students and graduates, but for the local and national economy as well. A recently commissioned report into Solent’s economic impact showed the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the University. GVA is a measure of the value that an organisation adds to the economy through its operations. The report found that that Solent generates £561 million GVA per year nationally (when including non-direct impacts such as student spend and tourism), supporting approximately 6,700 jobs. The University generates £287 million GVA per year purely in the Solent region.

October 2017

9 HESA HE Business and Community Interaction Survey 2015/16: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/hebci-2015-1610 HESA UK Performance Indicators 2015/16: Employment of leavers, July 2017: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/employment

VAL0054

Written Evidence submitted by the Sutton Trust

The Sutton Trust 1. The Sutton Trust was founded by Sir Peter Lampl in 1997. We are a foundation which improves social mobility in the UK through evidence-based programmes, research and policy advocacy.

2. From early years through school, college and university to the workplace, we work to combat educational inequality and prevent the subsequent waste of talent. We are concerned with breaking the link between educational opportunities and family background, so that young people are given the chance to fulfil their potential, regardless of their family background, school or where they live.

Introduction

3. Having a university degree can lead to better life chances, with graduates overall being more likely to be employed and to earn more over their lifetimes than non-graduates.

4. This has been examined in the Sutton Trust’s pioneering research into the educational backgrounds of those at the top of the UK’s professions. Our Leading People series has consistently found that our professional elite is disproportionately made up of those from more advantaged backgrounds; those who were privately educated and have gone to one of the top thirty universities in the country.

5. Our 2016 report on the professional elite found that in medicine 40% of top doctors were educated at Oxbridge and 60% at one of the top thirty universities in the country; in the senior civil service at university, about half had attended Oxbridge (51%), over a third UK top thirty institutions (38%) and a small minority

SUTTON TRUST KEY POINTS  

I. The typical English student faces debts of over £50,000 at graduation, and £57,000 if there 

are from a disadvantaged background with higher maintenance loans (IFS 2017) 

II. Earlier IFS research for the Sutton Trust put the average debt at £44,000 (before grants were 

abolished) Even compared with graduates of US private for‐profit universities (who graduate 

with about £29,000 of debt), estimates suggest that English students fare worst. (Degrees of 

Debt, 2016) 

III. In cash terms, we estimated in 2014 that, on average, graduates will now repay a total of 

£66,897, compared with £32,917 under the old. (Sutton Trust, IFS, 2014)  

IV. Most graduates will repay more in their 40s and early 50s under the new system than under 

the old one. (Sutton Trust, IFS, 2014) 

VAL0054

other UK universities (7%). And in law, nearly three quarters of the top judiciary were educated at Oxbridge (74%).1

6. Sutton Trust research consistently shows how important it can be to a person’s life chances where they went to school and which university they attended. More than ever, it is important that the same chances that are offered to the most advantaged backgrounds are extended to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and that means being offered the same chance to get a good quality university education.

7. For some students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the cost of higher education is too high. The Sutton Trust worked with the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2014 to publish research showing that English students would graduate with an average of £44,000 in debt, the highest levels of debt in the English-speaking world) and the inflation adjusted tuition fee rise will increase further still leaving poorer students in considerable debt.2 A more recent IFS update of this model showed that as a result of the abolition of the maintenance grant, higher fees and interest rates, and a freezing of the repayment threshold, the average student would graduate with £50,000 in debt, and students with full maintenance loans from poorer backgrounds would have average debts of £57,000.3

8. It is this debt which is seen as a deterrent for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our Aspirations Polling shows that the 2012 changes are having an impact on the numbers of students who are considering going to university with the proportion who say they are unlikely to attend the highest we have seen since our polling on this topic began in 2003.4

9. Under the old system, nearly half would have repaid their debt in full by the age of 40; only a very small fraction – about 5% – will achieve that under the new system.5 The research carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies for the Sutton Trust found that almost three-quarters of graduates will not earn enough to pay back their loans in full, being left with an average debt of around £30,000 to be written off.6 In light of the recent changes announced, the IFS has revised this figure now arguing that 83% of graduates will not pay back their loan in full.7

10. We welcome the changes that were announced by the government at the beginning of October 2017 which look to freeze the fee cap at £9,250 and increase

                                                            1 Sutton Trust. Dr Philip Kirby, ‘Leading People 2016’, February 2016 2 Sutton Trust, Dr Philip Kirby, ‘Degrees of Debt’, April 2016 3 IFS, ‘Higher education funding in England: past, present and options for the future’, July 2017 4 Ipsos Mori, Aspirations Polling, August 2017 5 Claire Crawford, Wenchao Jin, IFS, Payback Time? Student debt and loan repayments: what will the 2012 reforms mean for graduates?, April 2014 6 Ibid 7 IFS, Higher education reform: Raising the repayment threshold to £25,000 and freezing the fee cap to £9,250, October 2017 

VAL0054

the repayment threshold to £25,000. Along with consumer champion Martin Lewis, the Trust had campaigned against the decision in 2015 to freeze the threshold and had shown that it would cost average graduates an extra £2,800.8 However, we remain concerned that these changes do nothing to decrease the overall debt burden take on by young people.

11. The Sutton Trust believes that the government needs to look again at the system of tuition fees, examining how a means tested system could decrease the debt burden for those who are the most disadvantaged, and that means tested maintenance grants should be reintroduced to support poorer students in higher education.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 12. Whilst we welcome the changes announced by the government to freeze the fee cap and to increase the repayment threshold, we remained concerned. We believe that the changes do not go far enough and do little to lower the overall debt burden to students, which Sutton Trust polling has shown to be putting young people off university. 13. Our recent polling shows that the proportion of young people who say they are likely to go into higher education as fallen to its lowest level since 2009.9 Just under three-quarters (74%) of young people think that they are either very or fairly likely to go into higher education, down from a high of 81% in 2013. The figure was 77% in 2016. The proportion who say they are unlikely to attend is the highest we have seen since our polling on this topic began in 2003.10

14. It also asked young people what they were most worried about when it comes to higher education. Just over half of young people intending to attend university are worried about the cost of higher education (51%). While this proportion had been declining steadily since 2014, it has risen again from 47% in 2016, and is back at its highest level we have recorded. Financial worries are particularly pronounced in families with low levels of affluence (66% compared with 46% in ‘high affluence’ households).

15. The proportion of pupils from ‘low affluence’ households (61%) intending to attend university is the lowest in seven years for which we have data, and the socioeconomic gap in likelihood between high and low affluence households is also the highest it has been. These are worrying trends.

16. 46% of those likely to go to university say they are most worried about tuition fees, with 18% saying the paying back of loans and 16% the cost of living as a

                                                            8 Sutton Trust, ‘Unfair Deal’, September 2015 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 

VAL0054

student. Of those unlikely to go into higher education 70% cited reasons related to not enjoying it, while 64% cited a financial reason (up from 57% in 2013).

17. The recent UCAS End of Cycle Report 2016 further reiterates the gap between students from different socio economic groups going to university. Whilst students from disadvantaged backgrounds are 80% more likely to enter higher education that they were in 2006, the increase in the entry rate in 2016 is lower than it has been in previous years.11

18. According to the Multiple Equality Measure used by UCAS to analyse the background of students, in 2006 young people in group 5 (the most advantaged) were 6.0 times more likely to enter higher education than those in group 1 (most disadvantaged).12 Although there has been some improvement with this ratio declining to the most disadvantaged students being 3.8 times more likely to enter higher education by 2014, this ratio has not decreased any further and remained the same in 2016.13

19. Data from the same report also shows the difference in entry rates to higher tariff providers between the two groups. In 2016 entry rates to higher tariff providers for students from the most advantaged backgrounds was 24.5% in comparison to just 2.3% for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds resulting in young people from the most advantaged backgrounds being 10.8 times more likely to enter higher tariff providers than the most disadvantaged students.14

20. 2016 also saw the difference in entry rates between men and women increase with the entry rate for 18 year old women at 36.8% and men 27.2%. Data also shows that young women are more likely to enter all types of higher education provider than young men and our own research shows that white working class boys are being left behind.15

21. The data shows that whilst some improvement has been made in the number of disadvantaged young people going to university, there is work yet to be done. The impact of the changes to the student loan system are becoming apparent and when paired with our polling, the numbers suggest that the current fees and the lack of support with living costs are deterring those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds going to university.

The role for the Office for Students

22. The Sutton Trust cautiously welcomes the new Office for Students (OfS) and efficiency opportunities it may bring but we are concerned about the independence

                                                            11 UCAS Analysis and Research, End of Cycle Report 2016, December 2016 12 Ibid 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Ibid 

VAL0054

of the Director for Fair Access and Participation given that they do no report directly to Ministers or to Parliament. 23. The business case for the Office for Students says that “day to day responsibility for operations and decisions relating to the OfS’ Access and Participation functions” should sit with the Director. We fear that the director’s subordination to the head of the OfS – a body that universities fund and therefore may make it less inclined to challenge institutions on access – will lead to them being overruled on major decisions related to widening participation. 24. It is crucial that the Director of Fair Access has the independence to challenge universities robustly so that universities who dislike an access ruling – designed to help able young people from low income homes – are not able to appeal to the head of the OfS. 25. The Sutton Trust believes that the role of the Director for Fair Access and Participation needs to be strengthened further by ensuring that the Director of Fair Access is required to give evidence in front of the Education Select Committee annually in order to maintain independence and accountability. Conclusion

26. The Sutton Trust believes that the government needs to look again at the system of tuition fees, and should reintroduce means tested maintenance grants to encourage more students from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply. We believe that the government should consider means testing tuition fees and we are currently in the process of modelling what impact this may have on student debt.

27. The Trust also believes that students should get a fair deal on repayment, with the repayment threshold index linked again and coupled with lower interest rates. We believe that this will go some way towards encouraging disadvantaged students to apply to university and paired with effective outreach programmes run by universities, will help to widen access to higher education.

28. As mentioned above, the Trust is currently working on some research which looks at a means tested fee system and would be happy to share this research with the Committee once it is completed to help inform its conclusions.

October 2017

VAL0031

Written Evidence submitted by the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS)

About AGCAS  

1. AGCAS is the expert membership organisation for higher education student career development and graduate employment professionals. Through our members, we support the best possible career outcomes from higher education of individuals, institutions, society and the economy. AGCAS represents 98% of careers services within the HE sector, providing professional development and sharing best practice.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

1.1 AGCAS member services are, on the whole, optimistic regarding the new Graduate Outcomes survey. Some of the additions to the data set, not least the ‘student voice’ aspects, are a welcome addition and offer greater contextualisation and granularity to complex graduate labour markets.

1.2 Successful employability outcomes are dependent on a range of factors: a

blend of skills and attributes; students applying themselves to and engaging with career planning and job search processes; students’ self-awareness and understanding of their match to the labour market; students’ ability to effectively articulate and evidence the skills they have developed both through study and outside of study; and the availability of opportunities within the labour market. Furthermore, the responsibility of employers within the employability landscape is not to be underestimated in relation to salary, widening participation and conditions for graduates entering the labour market.

1.3 The graduate population is not particularly mobile. Looking at the 2015/16

graduate cohort, almost 70% are employed in their home region nine months after graduation and less than 20% move to a totally new region (this has fallen from 19% in 2014/15 to 18% in 2015/16 of these 42% go to London, but this proportion is also falling). Part time students who are studying and working at the same time are also likely to be job seeking close to home. Their motivation for study is varied – they can be career starters, career changers or career developers and, in the latter case, may wish to remain

VAL0031

with their current employer. Graduate outcomes are therefore linked to regional variations in labour markets.

1.4 AGCAS is focusing on regionalisation as a key strategic theme during

2017/18. AGCAS members (HE institutional careers services) have developed a strong understanding of their regional labour market and work closely with local employers to understand their skills needs and recruitment of graduates. As such, our members are instrumental in supporting their local economies and regions. However, national employability measures of success (with a distinct lack of contextualisation) can often run counter to such regional economic investment. Without associated commentary, rigid application of proxies such as salary outcomes take little account of regional labour market variations. As such, many of our members are concerned about the use of graduate outcomes data, which fundamentally may compel universities to seek to drive graduates to the highly affluent centres of employment, as opposed to supporting the regional skills gaps and promoting graduate retention.

1.5 Furthermore, the use of SOC codes to classify and judge whether a graduate

is in a ‘graduate-level’ occupation is in much need of review. The labour market is constantly evolving and the ‘knowledge economy’ of the UK requires graduates across a range of disciplines, sectors and roles. The value of a university degree can no longer be measured by means of a single point judgement on a graduate’s career. Many roles currently classified as ‘non-graduate’ are, within the context of the current labour market, viable graduate destinations to then progress into a profession. Such examples of this would be graduates choosing to progress as a teaching assistant before embarking upon a career in education as a teacher; gaining the necessary experience is increasingly vital for graduates to undertake their professional training.

1.6 Objective judgements of graduates’ success in terms of employment and

salary pay little credibility to the wider, personal, developmental, cultural and societal benefits of graduates in the labour market. Graduates may be more motivated by notions of altruism and contribution to society than by hierarchy, status and salary. This is why the proposed ‘subjective well-being’ and ‘student voice’ elements of the new Graduate Outcomes survey can offer a greater insight into the true employability value of higher education.

1.7 Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data looks at salary levels over

longer periods of time but takes no account of regional variations in labour markets and salary levels. Furthermore, the current methodology of measuring three distinct cohorts at three different points in time renders the validity of the data questionable. These are fundamentally three distinct groupings of graduates experiencing very different economic climates and labour markets. As referenced above, use of the LEO as a metric within TEF and as an indicator of institutional success may have an unintended consequence of measuring institutional success as the number of graduates

VAL0031

who take up city jobs rather than addressing skills needs within the institution’s region, or supporting the industrial strategy. Key professions such as teaching and nursing do not attract the higher salaries but are important graduate employment destinations.

1.8 Although graduate outcomes data is important in understanding whether

higher education provides value for money for the individual, society and the economy, it needs to be considered within the context of regional economic needs, the industrial strategy and student/graduate choice, motivation and behaviours. We run the very real risk of devaluing degrees which offer value to the labour market, economy and society but perhaps do not conform to the traditional and objectified measures of ‘success’.

2. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantage

students

2.1 AGCAS members understand that students do not arrive at university with the same level of social capital or career preparedness. As pre-18 careers support is patchy, many students are ill-equipped to access the comprehensive careers support offered to them in higher education. An increasing number of members have develop programmes to support disadvantaged students. Part time and mature students may not have had access to the same level of opportunities as those entering full time higher education at 18, nor are they always able to benefit from extra-curricular programmes. Universities need to be creative about how they develop skills and confidence for these students.

2.2 In 2016/17, AGCAS piloted a survey of first-year students’ career readiness,

which enabled us to identify cohorts that require additional support. This survey will be expanded for 2017/18, with approximately 30 participating institutions.

2.3 Other initiatives include the HEFCE Learning Gain project on Careers Registration. This project is providing valuable insight into how students develop their career readiness throughout their undergraduate studies and enable careers services to provide relevant, timely and responsive support to an individual’s specific circumstances.

2.4 Indeed, AGCAS member services across the country are recognised in the

sector as innovators in this field, offering initiatives and support for disadvantaged students far beyond what might be termed traditional ‘careers service’ delivery. Our members are responsive and proactive in addressing the challenges faced in an increasingly complex sector and student body.

2.5 We recently collected a selection of case studies of successful programmes

supporting a range of widening participation students across all regions and mission groups within our member institutions which we would be happy to share with the Education Select Committee.

VAL0031

October 2017

VAL0050

Written Evidence submitted by the Association of School

and College Leaders

A Introduction 1 The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents nearly

19,000 heads, principals, deputies, vice-principals, assistant heads, business managers and other senior staff of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. ASCL has members in more than 90 per cent of secondary schools and colleges of all types, responsible for the education of more than four million young people. This places the association in a unique position to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the leaders of secondary schools and of colleges and report on the feedback they have received from their former students.

2 ASCL welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence on value for money in Higher Education (H.E.). School and college leaders frequently engage with discussion with young people on this topic as they are considering their educational and employment future beyond the age of 18. Our members also receive feedback on this topic from alumni, parents and from recent graduates who joint their institution as new members of the teaching profession.

3 Our submission is organised in line with the five issues identified in the call for evidence to the inquiry, beginning with some general points, as follows: A Introduction B General points C Graduate outcomes and the use of destinations data D Social Justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students E Senior management pay in universities F Quality and effectiveness of teaching G The role of the Office for Students

B General points 4. The association receives noteworthy feedback from members that many

students are wary of taking on the significant loan commitment that is required to complete an undergraduate degree. There are also indications that this also is a contributory factor to drop-out from H.E. at an early stage as the financial reality of the loan system becomes clear to individual students.

5. The fact that there is some uncertainty over the long term repayment system

has been highlighted by recent changes and this is a further contributory

VAL0050

factor in terms of student decision making related to choosing whether to go to university or not. The recent increase in the interest rate from 4.6% to 6.1% is one example of the lack of certainty that may impact on a young person’s decision to attend H.E.

6. Although the major thrust of this inquiry is to focus on the value for money element for HE this matter must also be seen from the true real cost to the young person over the duration of the loan repayment period.

7. To be fair to young people a system that indicates more clearly the real cost over time to them would allow better informed decisions by young people. This would imply some form of fixed interest system and a payment floor that is routinely raised to keep ahead of entry level graduate salaries.

8. Members receive a significant amount of feedback from present and former students and from their parents about the costs of accommodation as well as the cost of the fees. It is not just the costs of the accommodation but the fact that in many cases the students are required to pay for a 40 week tenure even through the student only needs the accommodation for around 30 weeks.

9. The accommodation issues go beyond the university accommodation itself as many students have little choice over the tenancy agreements that they are required to sign, usually through their guarantor, to secure the accommodation. Often these agreement again are for a significantly longer period than the student actually needs them.

10. The costs of the accommodation are frequently higher than the maximum loan that a student can take out meaning that the student has little or no money left from their loan for living expenses. This means that students will often have to find part-time work to meet their living costs which can, particularly for courses with a high contact time have an impact on their available study time.

11. ASCL also gets feedback from members about the amount of contact time that H.E. students’ experience. This varies significantly between subjects but it is not unusual in many courses for undergraduate students to have around 8 or 9 hours contact a week often with some of the contact periods being in large groups of 50 or even 100 upwards. Many universities have 24 weeks of student contact with the other 6 weeks being for examination periods or individual study. There are however other courses e.g. medicine, engineering, sciences, where the contact time is significantly higher.

12. Whilst understanding that there are significant differences in structure and organisation schools and colleges find it difficult to understand the significant difference in fees given a school or college gets an average £4,531 per student and a H.E.institution an average £8,781, particularly given that schools and colleges provide between 15 and 18 hours contact time per student over 38 weeks. Whilst making this point we would note that 16-19 funding in schools and colleges is woefully inadequate.

VAL0050

13. Whilst not obviously directly related to this inquiry we would draw the committee’s attention the increasing number of unconditional offers now being made to students. Evidence would indicate that several H.E. institutions are indicating to students that they will make the offer to them unconditional should the student make that institution their first choice. This practice raises a number of issues including whether this may encourage students to make decisions based on ease of entry rather than appropriateness of course and institution.

14. School and college leaders also have concerns that the use of unconditional offers can lead to students easing back on their ‘A’ level or BTEC studies which can have an impact on their final grades. Whilst not affecting the university entry because of the unconditional nature of their offer this can have a detrimental impact on their future career opportunities should earlier grades be a factor in the selection criteria.

C Graduate outcomes and the use of destinations data

15. The association would welcome further improvements in the use of destinations data to inform young people better when they are making decisions related to both their Higher Education institution and course choice before completing their initial applications.

16. It would be helpful to young people not only to know potential immediate employment prospects on graduation but also information regarding the longer term career progression of former students. This would require a longitudinal study which should not be limited to pay progression but to broader career progression.

17. Such information would undoubtedly help young people in their initial choice of institution and course and may well assist in reducing drop-out rates from H.E.

D Social Justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

18. We recognise the government’s commitment to improving the opportunities

for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds however the points given in paragraphs 5 to 10 above are particularly relevant to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is some anecdotal evidence that students from disadvantaged back grounds may well look for a higher apprenticeship, or some other funded route, rather than direct entry into university in order to avoid what they see as taking on a significant debt.

19. The issue given in paragraph 10 above is a major difficulty for disadvantaged students where the sum total of a student’s grant and loan is insufficient for them to live off. It is not uncommon for the whole of this money being needed to cover accommodation costs. This is a particular problem for a

VAL0050

disadvantaged student who is studying a high contract subject such as medicine, veterinary science, dentistry, sciences and engineering, where part-time work is not a viable option.

E Senior management pay in universities 20. We have no specific comment to make in this section. F Quality and effectiveness of teaching

21. It is very early in the process of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to see how this will work in practice. There are however concerns as to how this is linked to allowing HE institutions to raise their fees.

22. For students it is the quality of the teaching and learning experience in their particular course that is of the greatest interest to them rather than any overall rating for the HE institution.

23. It would be most helpful for students if there was clear validated information about the teaching quality of individual courses available to them before they make their initial choice.

G The role of the Office for Students

24. ASCL recognises the need for a simpler, less bureaucratic and less expensive system of regulation. A system that explicitly champions the student whilst recognising employer needs and taxpayer interest in ensuring value for their investment in higher education.

25. The association supports bringing together in one organisation the regulation of all higher education providers in the sector to operate a single regulatory gateway creating a level playing field for all providers.

26. ASCL sees the rationale in bringing together existing functions on teaching standards, market entry and widening participation in a single organisation.

27. It is however too early to comment on the effectiveness of the Office for Students.

October 2017

VAL0052

Written Evidence submitted by the British Association of Social Workers (BASW)

1. Executive Summary

a. While 50% of young people now go to university, in contrast only 6% of ‘care leavers’ go to university. Once care leavers are at university they are more likely to drop out and thus less likely to attain a degree. There are just under 90,000 children and young people who are currently looked after – a population the size of Stevenage - all of whom will go on to be ‘care leavers’. This submission sets out the evidence, the role of social workers and draws conclusions about how this situation can be improved. BASW recommends:

i. Additional funding and other appropriate flexibilities in ensuring ‘staying

put’ arrangements are suitable for those formerly looked after young people attending university.

ii. Relevant authorities collaborate on data gathering on care leavers at

university. iii. There should be an offer of CPD for social workers around supporting

educational attainment through to university. iv. Coordination of these activities in England sits with the National

Implementation Adviser for Care Leavers. 2. Introduction

a. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) is the professional association for social work in the UK, with offices in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There are over 22,000 BASW members employed by local authorities, the private, voluntary and independent sector, universities (as lectures and researchers), private organisations, the NHS and in independent practice. A proportion of all social workers work with young people who are ‘in care’ and this experience provides a distinctive perspective on matters for consideration by the Select Committee.

3. Terminology

a. Children and young people who live with foster carers or in residential care as a result of the intervention of the state are often described as ‘children in care’. However, the legally correct terminology for children in care is ‘looked after’ a term which was introduced in the Children Act 1989 and replaced the term ‘in care’ (Children Act, 1989). Perhaps the unwieldiness of this term, and the consequent derivatives (e.g. ‘formerly

VAL0052 looked after’, ‘the looked after system’) has led to the re-emergence of the term ‘in care’ in the literature (e.g. Zayed and Harker, 2015). The term ‘care experienced’ has also recently emerged to describe children and young people who are looked after and people aged 18 and over who are no longer looked after (e.g. NNECL, 2016). This submission will now use the term ‘looked after’.

4. Evidence for Consideration 4.1 The numbers of young people who are looked after.

a. There are some 70,440 children and young people who are looked after in England in 2016 (DfE, 2017), some 11,477 in Scotland (Scotgov, 2017), 5,600 in Wales (StatsWales, 2017) and 2,132 in Northern Ireland (health-ni.gov.uk, 2017), a total population of 89,649 or a population broadly the size of Stevenage.

b. All these children will go on to be formerly looked after or in the usual

parlance ‘care leavers’.

c. All children who are looked after will have an allocated social worker. All young people who were formerly looked after will have an allocated worker, but only a small proportion of these will be qualified registered social workers.

4.2 University and young people who have been previously looked after.

a. Currently almost 50% of young people go on to university (Coughlan, 2013; Goodhard, 2017). In contrast, the proportion of young people at university who were formerly looked after is just 6% (NAO, 2015).

b. Young people who have been formerly looked after are more likely to drop

out of university and thus less likely to attain a degree. While there is no direct evidence of this there is powerful circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that this is the case. Young people who were formerly looked after are drawn from a socio-economic group that are recognised as being more likely to drop out, fail to complete their degree or get a poor degree (IFS, 2014). At university they struggle more with flat-mates, accommodation, friends, peer support and money (Universities UK, 2016)

c. In addition, attaining a degree is not simply about academic attainment -

it also requires a set of appropriate circumstances and support; this includes security of accommodation during university vacation; occasional financial support and secure and consistent emotional support.

4.3. Looked after young people and educational under-achievement

a. Academic attainment is a cumulative process. The vast majority of children who are looked after come into the system carrying a significant legacy of abuse, neglect and trauma. For example, in England, for the Court to make a Section 31 Order (the route by which the vast majority of

VAL0052 children come to be looked after) requires a finding that under the care of the parents or carers the child concerned ‘is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm’ (Section 31 (2) (a) Children Act, 1989). This legacy persists through into adulthood.

b. Looked after children are drawn almost entirely from the most socio-

economically deprived elements of society (Bebbington and Miles, 1989; Bilson and Martin, 2016).

c. Contrasts are often made between the academic achievement of looked

after children and the higher levels of academic achievement of the average population of children (e.g. Sebba et al, 2015). In fact compared to their socio-economic peers who are not looked after the comparison is less stark (Berridge, 2006).

d. In addition to the barriers faced by their socio-economic peers children

who are looked after – precisely because of their upbringing – may also have had significant periods out of school, experience behavioural problems in school, have additional special educational needs and face above average rates of exclusion (Berridge et al, 2008). After a child becomes looked after, placement moves may require a change of schooling causing further disruption to education. School non-attendance, extended gaps between transfers from one school to another and exclusion may all result in the child failing to meet key academic attainment points, thus leaving the child further and further behind and less and less confident that they can cope.

e. It is not surprising therefore that young people who were formerly looked

after are overly represented among the proportion of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). In the period 2013-14 41% of 19 year-old young people who were formerly looked after were NEET compared with 15% for all 19 year-olds (p.7. NAO, 2015).

f. Poor GCSE results screen out the option of ‘A’ levels, which while not the

only route into university, is the predominant route.

g. Every young person who secures a place at university deserves to be congratulated, however, perhaps the most congratulations should be kept for formerly looked after young people who have beaten every statistical trend to secure their degree place.

4.4 Existing legislative, policy and related interventions

a. There have been successive attempts by Government to grapple with the issue of educational under-achievement among young people looked after. In England, The Children Act 2004 amended the 1989 Children Act to state:

‘’(3A) The duty of a local authority under subsection (3)(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by them includes in particular a duty to promote the child’s educational achievement’

VAL0052 (Children Act, 2004, Section 52)

b. Accompanying government guidance stated: ‘…local authorities as ‘corporate parents’ should demonstrate the strongest commitment to helping every child they look after, wherever the child is placed, to achieve the highest educational standards he or she possibly can. This includes supporting their aspirations to achieve in further and higher education. (Author’s underlining). (p.3 DCSF, 2005)

c. Further statutory guidance for local authorities followed: to create Virtual Schools for looked after children, named individuals for ensuring progress (the Virtual School Head) and the requirement for Children’s Departments to appoint Advisory Teachers (HM Government, 2005). Subsequently there were new directions (DCSF, 2009 (d)) on improving ‘educational attainment for children in care’, each school was to have a designated teacher for looked after children (DCSF, 2009 (c)), and there were new instructions for primary schools and secondary schools in relation to looked after children (DCSF, 2009 (a) and DCSF, 2009 (b). Each child was to have a Personal Education Plan or PEP. The process continued under the Coalition Government with additional directions (this time from the re-labelled Department for Education (DfE, 2010). The ‘pupil premium’ (funding for specific categories of children including children who were looked after) was introduced. Ofsted inspected educational attainment targets for looked after children as a discrete group both for Children’s Services Departments but also for individual schools.

d. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 further strengthened services to

looked after young people, and formerly looked after young people by providing for the ‘local offer for care leavers’ and the requirement to provide advice, support and planning until the young person is 25 (Sections 2 and 3, Children and Social Work Act, 2017).

e. Each looked after young person will have an allocated social worker.

Relative to other professionals social workers do not have as much direct contact with young people as, for example, schools (five days a week) or foster-carers (24/7), however, social workers do set the context for the child. For example, in England, they can play an active role in choosing which school the child attends, through the Personal Education Plan (PEP) they can play an active role in agreeing specific actions with the school and working with the Advisory Teacher following up between meetings. They can play an active role in asking the young person about academic progress and encouraging extra-curricular activities. Social work is increasingly a graduate profession (with increasing numbers of social workers also holding further degrees) so social workers can provide a model for a degree level of education. However, in England, while many local authorities provide training that is specific to the PEP process, as far as is known, there is no specific post-qualification CPD (continuous professional development) training or education available on supporting looked after young people into university.

VAL0052

f. The Office of Fair Access has been set up to monitor under-representation at university within a range of groups of which young people who have been looked after are one.

g. A new organization has been established (NNECL) which supports young

people who were looked after into and at university. This network, seeks to share information, good practice and resources as well as holding a major annual conference.

h. Various universities have adopted a range of strategies, including

dedicated staff to support and encourage under-represented groups including those who were formally looked after (e.g. NNECL, 2016).

5. Conclusions

a. As has been demonstrated there have been on-going efforts by a range of governments and agencies to address the educational under-achievement of looked after young people and thus supporting their efforts in securing, and retaining, a place at university. What more needs to be done?

5.1 Recommendation 1: Additional funding and other appropriate flexibility in ensuring ‘staying put’ arrangements are suitable for those formerly looked after young people attending university.

b. ‘Staying put’ is an arrangement whereby young people who have been looked after can remain living with their foster-carers after 18 (DfE, 2013). It was introduced precisely to ensure a better transition for looked after young people post 18 ensuring ongoing support and accommodation. However, implementation has been problematic. For a young person who wishes to study away at university ‘staying put’ presents a dilemma. If the young person is not in residence the foster-carers must either hold a ‘vacancy’ (and thus not get paid) or ask the young person to leave in order to take on another looked after child in which case the young person has nowhere to live during university holidays. This problem can be ‘resolved’ by the young person opting to stay with his carers and studying locally, however, this restricts both choice of university and choice of course and since much of the experience of being at university involves being away from home this is effectively a limitation that many undergraduates do not have to deal with. This ‘resolution’ also assumes that there is a university near enough to make this a possibility, and second that this university offers the young person a place.

c. There is a current campaign to extend ‘staying put’ to residential facilities.

When this reform is made, appropriate funding and flexibilities should be available so that young people at universities can return to their ‘home’ residential unit, if they so wish.

5.2 Recommendation 2: Relevant authorities collaborate on the data gathering for formerly looked after young people at university.

VAL0052 d. As far as can be established, there is no direct data about the drop-out

rate of formerly looked after young people from university. Such data is vital if the challenges facing young people at university are to be quantified and understood. There is little point in supporting an increasing number of looked after young people into university if once there, the ‘corporate parent’ of the state doesn’t know (and by extension ‘isn’t interested’) in what happens to them once they are there.

5.3. Recommendation 3: There should be an offer of CPD for social workers around supporting educational attainment through to university.

e. Not all qualified social workers will work with children and young people and of those working with children and young people only a proportion will work with young people who are looked after. Thus any suggestion that pre-qualifying social work education and training address the issues identified here would not be the most effective use of resources. However, for those social workers working with looked after young people supporting educational attainment is vital and an offer of continuous professional development (CPD) around supporting looked after young people into university is key. The National Implementation Adviser for Care Leavers should work with BASW to develop a capability framework for this CPD.

5 .4 Recommendation 4: Coordination of these activities sits with the National Implementation Adviser for Care Leavers.

f. The coordination and communication of progress on these two streams (‘staying put’ and data) does not sit easily with any one agency and the concern must be that under such circumstances efforts are dissipated and accountability is lost. One option would be that oversight and coordination of such activities sit with the National Implementation Adviser for Care Leavers.

Contact: Luke Geoghegan, Head of Policy and Research, BASW. luke.geoghegan@basw.co.uk. References Bebbington A and Miles J (1989) The Background of Children who enter Local Authority Care. British Journal of Social Work, 19, 349-368. Berridge D (2006) Theory and Explanation in child welfare: education and looked after children. Children and Family Social Work Vol 12, Issue 1, Feb 2017 pp1-10. Berridge D, Dance C, Beecham J, Field S (2008) Educating Difficult Adolescents: Effective Education for Children in Public Care or with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley.

VAL0052 Bilson A and Martin K (2016) Referrals and Child Protection in England: One in Five children Referred to Children’s Services and One in Ineteen investigated before the Age of Five. British Journal of Social Work, 0, 1-19. Children Act 1989 (1992) London: HMSO Children Act 2004 (2004) London: HMSO Children and Social Work Act 2017 (2017) London: HMSO Coughlan S (2013) University Levels reach 49%. BBC Education and Familiy, 24 April, 2013. http://bbc.co.uk/news/education-22280939. Accessed 8 July, 2015. DCSF (Department for Children Schools and Families), (2009) (d) Improving the attainment of Children in Care (Looked after Children) London: DCSF DCSF 2009 (c) The role and responsibilities of the designated teacher for looked after children: Statutory guidance for school governing bodies. London: DCSF. DCSF 2009 (a) Improving the attainment of looked after young people in secondary schools: Guidance for Schools. London: DCSF DCSF 2009 (b) Improving the attainment of looked after young people in primary schools: Guidance for Schools. London: DCSF DfE (2010) The Children Act 1989 Guidance and regulations Vol 3: Planning Transition to Adulthood for Care Leavers. London: DfE DfE (2013) Staying put arrangements for care leavers aged 18 years and over. London: DfE. DfE (2017) Children looked after in England (including adoption) (year ending 31 March, 2016) London: DfE Goodhart D (2017) The Road to Somewhere: The populist revolt and the future of politics. London: Hurst and Co. Health-ni.gov.uk (2017) Accessed 20 Oct, 2017. Institute for Fiscal Studies (2014) Socio-economic differences in university outcomes in the UK: drop-outs, degree completion and degree class. London: IFA National Audit Office (2015) Care leavers transition to adulthood. London: NAO NNECL (2016) Supporting Care Leavers in FE and HEA: A Guide for Local Authority Workers. Scotgov (2017) Accessed 22 Oct, 2017. Sebba et al (2015) The Educational Progress of Looked After Children in England: Linking Care and Educational Data. Oxford: Rees Centre.

VAL0052 Stats Wales (2017) Accessed 22 Oct, 2017. Universities UK (2016) Working in Partnership: Enabling Social Mobility in Higher Education, Oct, 2016 Zayed and Harker (2015) Children in Care in England: Statistics Briefing Paper Number 04470, 5 Oct, 2015. London: House of Commons Library. October 2017

VAL0015

Written Evidence submitted from the Catholic Education Service (CES) Executive Summary

• The evidence is being submitted by the Catholic Education Service (CES).

• There are currently four Catholic Universities in the UK, all committed to social justice in higher education with long traditions of widening access and support for disadvantaged groups.

• All four universities have attained a Gold or Silver TEF status. We consider peer-reviewed TEF standards to provide prospective students with a useful alternative to the standard data-heavy league tables in determining value for money in a degree course.

Introduction

1. The Catholic Church has a long tradition of involvement in higher education in England, dating back to the 12th century. Today the Church is involved in higher education through its four Universities (St Mary's University, Twickenham; Newman University, Birmingham; Leeds Trinity University and Liverpool Hope University which is an ecumenical Christian foundation). All four universities admit students of all faiths and none.

2. The Catholic Universities and University Colleges form part of the

Cathedrals Group. The Cathedrals Group (also known as The Council of Church Universities and Colleges (CCUC)) is an association of sixteen universities and university colleges with Church foundations. With more than 100,000 enrolled students, Church Universities collectively represent almost 5% of all UK students (undergraduates, postgraduates and research students).

Fostering Social Justice in Higher Education

3. Catholic Universities tend to be smaller in scale and have a diverse student population from a range of social, ethnic and economic backgrounds. These institutions outperform their benchmarks in terms of providing inclusive education, demonstrating high levels of enrolled students from low participation areas, state school educated students and students from a poorer social background.1

4. Church Universities are student-centred, providing a nurturing

environment to stimulate and foster the scholarly advancement of all their students and helping them to achieve their best. Our universities promote a sense of social justice and remain strongly committed to opening up opportunities to those traditionally excluded from higher education,

                                                            1 Times Good University Guide 2018: Top 10 most inclusive universities.

VAL0015

including those who are the first member of their family to attend a university.

5. Church Universities prepare their students well for the world of work including placements and work experience, entrepreneurial activities with serious ethical intent and volunteering opportunities. These placements ensure students leave university with practical degree-relevant experience, industry contacts and valuable employer references. Cathedrals Group Universities have a higher than average rate of employability at 94%.2 Additionally, as a means to expand the opportunities available to students of different abilities and experience, Leeds Trinity has recently confirmed it is to develop a teacher ‘degree apprenticeship’.

Implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework

6. Church Universities are committed to high quality academic pursuit and maintaining and deepening a culture of teaching and research. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a welcome method of evaluation based on peer review and university submissions in combination with raw data. TEF offers a complementary assessment of a university’s performance to the multiple league tables and guides available. It provides clear and unbiased information about teaching quality and how well students do after they graduate: both key indicators of value for money when selecting which higher education qualification to pursue.

7. All four Catholic Universities have achieved a Silver or Gold TEF award

status. Focusing on teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes rather than weighting in favour of a university’s research quotient, the TEF can take account of the size of an institution and any specialisation- such as in education and teaching degrees which Catholic universities specialise in: Cathedrals Group members educate a third of all primary school teachers in the country.

The role of the Office for Students (OfS)

8. The CES awaits the implementation of the OfS in Spring 2018 with interest. Combining the roles of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) we believe, offers the opportunity to synergise and simplify student access with quality assessment in a diversifying HE sector. It is important in the student interest to provide greater clarity to all prospective students regardless of income or background.

                                                            2 HESA/DLHE data 2013-2014 (HEA,2015)

VAL0015

October 2017

VAL0045

  

Written Evidence submitted by Centre for Global Higher Education  

 

1. The Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) is an international research centre focused on higher education and its future development. Our research aims to inform and improve higher education policy and practice. CGHE is a research partnership of international universities, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and based at the UCL Institute of Education (UK). Our three research programmes integrate local, national and global perspectives, and our researchers are based in nine countries across five continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and North America.

2. We are making this submission because we conduct research into the factors

that support high quality student learning in higher education and wish to use our expertise to comment on the working and future development of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)

How did the Year 2 of TEF work?  

3. Institutions that opted into Year 2 of the TEF were examined on three sets of metrics: students’ views of teaching, assessment and academic support from the National Student Survey (NSS); student dropout rates; and rates of employment. It is notable that none of these metrics directly measure the quality of teaching, although the NSS does give an insight into students’ perceptions of their teaching. Instead, they focus on examining the assumed effects of teaching.

4. Each submitting institution’s performance on these metrics was benchmarked against the demographic characteristics of its students, and its performance was flagged when it was statistically significantly better or worse than its benchmark. Assessors made an initial assessment of an institution’s performance based on its number of positive and negative flags and then examined contextual information and a 15-page institutional submission outlining the institution’s case for the excellence of its teaching. Based on this, institutions were awarded a Gold, Silver, or Bronze TEF award.

Does the level of TEF award provide valuable information about the quality of a university’s teaching?  

5. The Year 2 TEF outcomes provided students with better information about the quality of degree programmes than is currently offered by commercial higher education rankings. This is because the outcomes of higher education are shaped by the demographic characteristics of students, which have nothing to do with the quality of teaching in universities1. The TEF attempts to control systematically for these differences in student intake across all of the metrics used while university rankings do not do.

VAL0045

  

6. While the TEF metrics do not directly measure the quality of teaching, there is

a logic to them. The quality of a degree can reasonably be expected to be related to student perceptions of teaching, support, and assessment, and to the proportion of students staying on their degree programmes. Whilst using measures related to gaining employment are more problematic (see paragraph 12), in Year 2 of the TEF these were moderated by the other metrics.

Does a Gold TEF award mean that prospective students know they are applying to an excellent degree programme?  

7. A Gold TEF award is based on an institutional level assessment. The same university can offer programmes that differ significantly in quality2, which means that the TEF award does not tell prospective students about the quality of individual degree programmes. This means that it is highly likely that there are excellent degree programmes in universities with Bronze awards and less good degree programmes in universities with Gold awards. In addition, as the TEF award is for three years, any student who uses the TEF to inform their choice of university will not graduate for between four and eight years after the measures were taken. By this time, it is entirely possible the quality of teaching at that university will have changed.

8. TEF judgements are based on assessment criteria that examine ‘teaching quality’, ‘learning environment’ and ‘student outcomes’. For example, the assessment criteria for ‘teaching quality’ focus on the extent to which an institution: encourages student engagement, values teaching, offers programmes that involve rigour and stretch, and offers effective feedback on student work. It is unclear how these criteria were selected and why others, such as teaching expertise, were excluded. This raises questions of how the criteria form a coherent whole indicating something important about the excellence of teaching. These questions undermine the claim that the TEF offers a valid measure of high quality teaching.

Will the TEF lead to improvements in the quality of teaching in universities over the long term?  

9. It is important to recognise that the measurement of Teaching Excellence involved in the TEF is expensive. Such measurement is a waste of money unless it is designed to lead to improvements in practice.

10. If the TEF is to lead to improvements in the quality of teaching in universities, then improvements in performance on the metrics used must only be possible through improvements in the quality of teaching that students experience. The three sets of metrics used in Year 2 of the TEF were reasonable although, as discussed, there are weaknesses around the focus on the institutional level, the dated evidence that informs the metrics, and the lack of a coherent view of excellent teaching that informs the TEF.

VAL0045

  

11. The signs for the future development of the TEF are that it will not lead to improvements in the quality of teaching in universities. This is for three reasons.

12. First, in the Guidelines for Year 3 of the TEF, the Department for Education has downgraded the weighting of the metrics from the National Student Survey. This means that employment outcomes are now the most highly weighted element of the TEF metrics. However, employment outcomes are more strongly linked to institutional reputation, subject mix and geographical location than they are to teaching quality3.

13. Second, in the future, the government wants to increase the number of metrics that are used and there are strong indications that this will include a metric related to the ‘teaching intensity’. However, there is no evidence that ‘teaching intensity’ is a valid measure of teaching quality4, 5. Conversely, factors that are known to be necessary elements of high quality teaching, such as the expertise of those who teach, do not appear to be under consideration6.

14. Third, for reasons discussed in paragraph 7, the Department for Education have signaled that they expect the TEF to move to a subject level in the future. The TEF Subject-Level Pilot Specification suggests that, if this happens, metrics are highly likely to play an increasingly important role in defining TEF awards. This is because the proposed Model A ‘by exception’ looks the most likely to be adopted on grounds of limiting costs and bureaucracy. However this model will compare subjects with overall institutional metrics and only examine those subjects where their performance on the metrics differs. The predictable result of such an approach is that it will greatly increase pressure on panels to give awards that align with the outcome based solely on the metrics. This is because if they award an outcome that differs from that suggested by the metrics, then a whole range of subjects will be given an award that is at odds with that suggested by their metrics.

15. This combination of the use of metrics that do not relate to teaching excellence and increased pressure on panels to give awards that align to these metrics suggest that, in the future, the TEF will be more of a measure of institutional reputation and game playing than a measure of teaching quality. If this happens then the TEF will not lead to improvements in the quality of teaching in universities nor will it provide prospective students with valid information about the quality of particular degree courses.

Factors to consider in developing an alternative approach to the TEF that is more likely to improve the quality of teaching in universities  

16. In developing ideas about how an alternative approach to the TEF might be more likely to improve the quality of university teaching, we need to take account of what we know from over half of century of research into learning and teaching in higher education. We also need to draw on what we know about how institutions respond when they are assessed on performance

VAL0045

  

measures. Neither commercial higher education rankings nor the existing TEF take sufficient account of this existing knowledge.

17. We also need to accept that no measurements of teaching excellence are precise. Metrics of teaching quality are sledgehammers rather than lasers and will, at best, offer broad indications of quality. This means that we need to beware of any false precision of measurements. This is one of the major problems associated with commercial higher education rankings, although the three broad levels of TEF awards do address this problem.

18. Finally we need to recognise that any approach needs to involve the design of an assessment system, rather than the collection of individual metrics. This is a significant problem of both commercial higher education rankings and the TEF.

19. If we take accounts of these three factors then we can develop two alternative ways in which the TEF could be approached: a subject specific TEF or an institutionally focused TEF.

Alternative approach 1: The subject specific TEF  

20. One alternative approach is to develop a subject specific TEF that draws on a research-informed view of excellent teaching. This would base its criterion on a coherent framework for understanding teaching in higher education. There are a number of potential frameworks that could be used for this, for example, the Teaching and Learning Research Programmes 10 principles of teaching and learning7.

21. Under this approach, the individual metrics informing the assessment system would be part of a collective and coherent system. This would involve relating the metrics to the overall criteria and showing how they measure something that is identified as a necessary element of excellent teaching. This is in line with the approach taken to reviewing items for the NSS8.

22. Such an approach would ensure that the metrics would be measures of the quality of teaching offered, rather than the prestige of institutions or the profile of their students. To improve their scores, institutions would need to improve their teaching practices.

23. Under this approach, the overall criteria would remain stable but the actual metrics drawn upon would change regularly. They would be drawn from a very large public bank of potential metrics. This is important so that institutions focus on improving the quality of their practices rather than fixing individual metrics.

24. Such an approach would require a dramatic increase in the number of publically available measures of teaching quality in universities. This would be a significant barrier to introducing this approach.

Alternative approach 2: The institutional focused TEF  

VAL0045

  

25. Implementing alternative approach 1 in a rigorous and valid manner is likely to be prohibitively expensive. Another option would be to focus at the institutional level rather than the subject level.

26. If the TEF is to focus at the institutional level then it needs to be focused on examining qualities of the institution that support the development and enhancement of excellent teaching9. This is because an institutional level TEF needs to be focused on the processes that are under the control of the institution rather than misleading implying that it is a measurement of the quality of particular degree programmes.

Conclusion  

27. It is notable that alternative approach 1 looks like an improved version of the ‘bottom-up’ TEF and a metrics-based version of previous Quality Assurance Agency Subject Review, whereas alternative approach 2 is reminiscent of previous Quality Assurance Agency Institutional Audits.

28. This highlights an inevitable tension in approaches to measuring and enhancing teaching excellence. This tension is between, on the one hand, the full rich picture that is offered by examining individual degree subjects in detail, which in the long term usually proves too expensive to be sustainable. On the other hand, there is the option of examining institutional level processes that is more efficient but which, in the long term, usually is felt not to provide enough detailed information about individual degree subjects.

29. Both the current TEF and the ‘by exception’ subject level TEF attempt to overcome this tension but in doing so end up failing to provide a valid picture of either institutional processes or the quality of individual degree subjects.

30. Rather than seeing this as a tension that can be overcome, we need to recognise that however we choose to measure and enhance teaching excellence involves a compromise in terms of either cost or the level of information that is provided.

31. In recognising this tension, it also becomes apparent that we need to be very clear with prospective students about the limits of what any measure of teaching excellence can actually tell them. Deciding upon which degree programme to apply for needs to be recognised as a complex decision that involves the careful consideration of how the curriculum is designed and how students will be supported rather than something that can be based on a simple reading of commercial university rankings or TEF awards.

Endnotes 1. E. Hazelkorn (2011) Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education.

Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. 2. It is for this reason that the National Student Survey was intended to compare

courses at the subject level. See P. Ramsden & C. Callender (2014) Appendix A: Literature Review. Review of the National Student Survey. Higher Education Funding Council for England.

VAL0045

  

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2014/Review,of,the,NSS/2014_nssreviewa.pdf

3. E. Hazelkorn (2013) ‘World-Class Universities or World-Class Systems: Rankings and Higher Education Policy Choices’, in E. Hazelkorn; P. Wells and M. Marope (Eds.), Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses, Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002207/220789e.pdf

4. Ramsden, P. (2008). The future of higher education teaching and the student experience. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/future-higher-education-teaching-and-student-experience

5. P. Ashwin (2016). Quality by the skipload. Times Higher Education 2,280 (pp. 24). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/teaching-quality-does-it-come-bulk

6. M. McLean & P. Ashwin (2016) The quality of learning, teaching, and curriculum. in P Scott, J Gallacher & G Parry (eds), New languages and landscapes of higher education. Oxford University Press, pp. 84-102.

7. Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Keane, E., Krause, K.L., Leibowitz, B., McCune, V., MacLaren, I. and McArthur, J. (2015) Reflective teaching in higher education. London, Bloomsbury.

8. C. Callender, P. Ramsden and J. Griggs (2014) Review of the National Student Survey: Summary Report. Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2014/Review,of,the,NSS/2014_nssreview.pdf

9. One way of approaching this is outlined in M. McLean & P. Ashwin (2016) The quality of learning, teaching, and curriculum. in P Scott, J Gallacher & G Parry (eds), New languages and landscapes of higher education. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 84-102.

October 2017

VAL0071

Written Evidence submitted by the Committee of University Chairs

1. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) submits this evidence. The CUC is the representative body for the Chairs of UK universities. It delivers education, learning and development opportunities to its members by providing a peer-support network which promotes high standards in university governance. The education, learning and development programme of the CUC includes:

a. providing information and guidance on best practice in the governance of higher education in the United Kingdom;

b. supporting the continuous professional development of Chairs (and their governing bodies) to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities at the highest level; this includes but is not limited to:

i. providing a source of peer-to-peer support for Chairs; ii. encouraging collaboration between Chairs where possible and

desirable; iii. informing Chairs of developments affecting higher education; iv. facilitating discussions between Chairs on key issues affecting

HEIs to enhance understanding and improve their effectiveness;

v. liaising with other bodies on issues arising from the core concerns of governing bodies to develop its programme of education, learning and development;

vi. explaining the importance of accountability to stakeholders and society;

vii. promoting effective stewardship of HEIs, ensuring proper and effective use of stakeholder funds;

viii. engaging with other bodies to advance the interests of UK higher education and to develop its programme of education, learning and development.

2. Membership is limited to institutions that possess full university title,

have degree awarding powers, and whose governing body chair (or equivalent) is a non-executive (i.e. lay/independent) member. Exec Summary

3. VCs and HE senior staff lead some of the most complex organisations in the UK. Their leadership has helped the UK HE system to become one of the best in the world. On average their salaries are below those of their global competitors, some benchmarks show them to be reasonable compared to some public-sector organisations, and information on their actual emoluments is freely available to the public in institutions’ financial accounts.

VAL0071

4. If considering VC pay in the context of value for money to students we do

not believe it to be material, since it will usually amount to around 0.1% of turnover. In assessing the value for money of UK HE, there are a wide range of considerations to be taken account of, not least the contribution that universities make to the UK economy (with over £95bn of gross output1) and in this context, we endorse the submission made by UUK.

5. That does not mean that there are not issues related to the pay of senior staff and CUC are addressing these over the coming months. We are discussing with our members whether we should produce improved guidance in respect of senior pay with a view to possibly:

a. developing better benchmarks for comparison b. improving public understanding c. reviewing membership of remuneration committees d. giving more transparency to objectives and performance

6. UK HE is a success story based on a diverse range of autonomous

institutions. The senior executives of these institutions are held to account by governing bodies consisting of highly experienced and capable people who mostly give their time freely to ensure the long-term sustainability and reputation of the sector. The CUC believes in and promotes transparency in decision making as part of its approach to good governance. Whilst we accept that improvements may be possible, we are sure that any changes that adversely affect either diversity or autonomy will ultimately damage the sector and reduce the value it delivers to students and society.

7. We reject any suggestion that there should be an explicit cap on the pay of Vice-Chancellors or senior staff – these are decisions that only institutions, with their detailed understanding of the markets they operate in and their long-term strategy can make. Of course, they need to be able to justify those decisions and be transparent. However, any move to put a ceiling on senior pay could have very negative consequences since every institution would accelerate to the cap and the best people would go elsewhere. Discussion

8. The CUC is the representative body for people that chair the governing bodies that actively hold senior executives of universities to account and ensure the long-term sustainability and reputation of UK higher education. It delivers education, learning and development opportunities to its members by providing a peer-support network which promotes high standards in university governance. We thought it would be helpful if we

                                                            1 Oxford Economics (2017), The Economic Impact of Universities 2014-15 (commissioned by Universities UK)

VAL0071

submitted evidence to the Committee in respect of the remuneration of Vice-Chancellors and senior staff.

9. Universities are significant organisations and make a major contribution to the UK economy and society. A large research led university can easily have with an annual turnover more than £600m, a workforce of more than 7,000 people and a broad community of students numbering some 30,000. Student satisfaction is high by international standards. UK universities provide cost effective internationally-leading research and have as partners many global institutions and companies. They act as a vital anchor institution in their region, working alongside public sector and commercial organisations in driving productivity improvement and creating a sense of place.

10. UK universities are complex organisations and face constant challenges and which they continue to respond to by enhancing their presence and reputation, internationally, nationally, and locally, while, at the same time, maintaining and improving the learning and teaching they offer and the research they undertake. Clearly, against this agenda, it is vital that they can attract, engage and retain the best possible leadership. They recruit in a globally competitive marketplace for staff at this level and of the calibre required. The risk of not securing the very best leadership for institutions is a hugely important consideration for governing bodies as they seek to maintain and develop their university.

11. Given the level of taxpayer investment in HE, the CUC agrees that society has a right to know that institutions’ funds are being properly used and their senior officers are being fairly, but not excessively, rewarded. That requires disclosure of remuneration policies, senior staff remuneration levels and an explanation of the weight of the posts and the individuals’ performance.

12. Higher education institutions in receipt of public funding have adopted the CUC’s Higher Education Code of Governance2 . This, together with the Illustrative Practice Note 13 provides guidance on the governance of remuneration. Specifically, the guidance says:

a. Institutions must establish a Remuneration Committee to consider and determine, as a minimum, the emoluments of the Vice-Chancellor and other senior staff

b. The Remuneration Committee composition must include the Chair of the governing body, be composed of a majority of independent members and have appropriate experience available to it

c. The Vice-Chancellor or other senior staff may be members of, or attend, Remuneration Committee but must not be present for discussions that directly affect them.

                                                            2 www.universitychairs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Code-Final.pdf 3 www.universitychairs.ac.uk/wp-content/.../12/IPN1-Remuneration-Committees.pdf  

VAL0071

d. The Remuneration Committee must consider comparative information on the emoluments of employees within its remit when determining salaries, benefits and terms and conditions and ensure that all arrangements are unambiguous and diligently recorded.

e. It must report on its decisions and operation at least annually to the governing body; such a report should not normally be withheld from any members of the governing body.

f. Remuneration Committee members must consider the public interest and the safeguarding of public funds alongside the interests of the institution when considering all forms of payment, reward and severance to the staff within its remit.

13. CUC accepts that it is possible to develop additional guidance - so we

have scheduled a major debate at our Plenary on October 26th where we will discuss the key issues and explore some of the tough questions around benchmarks, transparency, bonuses and the governance of remuneration to determine the content of such guidance.

14. Vice-Chancellors lead some of the most complex organisations in the UK. There is not an average or typical university, but to illustrate our assertion, consider the University of Hertfordshire4

15. It is one of the region’s largest employers, with over 2700 staff, it has a turnover of £238M, operates over 3700 bed spaces on campus, and offers over 800 undergraduate courses, postgraduate courses, Continuing professional development (CPD), online distance learning and short courses. It has a student community of over 25,300 which includes more than 2,800 overseas students from 100 different countries. It provides over 6000 sq. metres of laboratory and office space to businesses and manages over 875,000 books.

16. The demands on a Vice Chancellor within a single day can range from dealing with an indivual student complaint, negotiating a multi-million-pound financing scheme, leading discussion on future strategic initiatives, receiving a top level international delegation, an interview with a national journalist, and so on. All of this is delivered within an increasingly competitive environment both nationally and internationally, where student demand for places both at subject and institutional level is increasingly volatile.

17. In this context, it is important that any decisions on level of pay must balance the need to demonstrate effective use of stakeholder funds with need to recruit, retain and fairly reward those staff that deliver success. Figures provided by UCEA5 suggest that looking at international

                                                            4 http://www.herts.ac.uk/about-us/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures 5 The chart shows headline statistics related to head of institution remuneration in six countries based on various sources collated and analysed by UCEA. Figures are provided

VAL0071

comparisons Vice Chancellor pay in the UK is below that of other countries.

18. As the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation said, ‘it is important to remember that universities are generally still charities with a not-for-profit public service mission and that, when it comes to V-C remuneration, finding the right benchmarks is essential’. CUC believes using benchmarks such as the prime minister’s salary to assess and control the pay of V-Cs or any other roles is, as the Hutton Fair Pay Review found in 2011, generally simplistic, flawed and damaging. Hutton argued that the most appropriate approach to comparing pay is by use of pay multiples and in particular the ratio of CEO pay to the median of all staff in the organisation. Based on figures provided by UCEA, that figure for UK universities in 2015-16 was 6.4. This compares reasonably with public sector organisations

Pay ratios6 – public sector                                                             in the national currency and UCEA has calculated converted salaries based on purchase power parity and direct conversion for the year covered 6 This chart shows comparative data for three large public-sector workforces and Crossrail. The source for Civil Service and Crossrail is ONS and is based on basic salary for all staff and the basic salary of the highest paid employee (irrespective of job). The NHS figure is calculated by UCEA based on salary data from NHS Digital which reports mean basic FTE pay for all NHS employees. The local government figure is the average of over 120 local authority pay reports and is based on all employees but some LAs

VAL0071

19. Of course, if comparison is made with pay multiples in the private sector higher education multiples compare well, since it is not unusual for private sector pay multiples to be more than 100.

20. There have been some suggestions that VC pay has gone up substantially in recent years as they have appropriated an unreasonable proportion of the higher student fees introduced by changes in legislation. By looking at higher education pay multiples over time the data suggests something else, namely that as the sector has developed and become more competitive the pay multiple has gradually increased. There are no sudden spikes in the data and no linkage to changes in student financing systems.

Sector pay ratio7: HoI to median

                                                            report on only permanent employees. Including all HE staff FTE salaries, rather than just full-time staff increases the sector pay ratio from 6.4 to 6.8:1 (NB: HESA data for part-time staff is less robust than that for full-time staff).   7 This compares the median head of institution total pay to median gross full-time earnings for staff in HE. The sector median is based on data from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings while the HoI median is based on UCEA data.

VAL0071

Given the data available, the CUC sees no evidence that most Vice Chancellors are paid an unreasonable amount for the challenging work that they do or that V-Cs sit in on discussions that affect their own pay. Yet, we recognise that there is a level disquiet, in part prompted by some challenging media stories over the last few months.

21. We are certain that most of remuneration committees work diligently and carefully and have nothing to worry about if they set out why they have done what they have done – a proper transparency statement, easily accessible also gives an opportunity to demonstrate both the complexity of and the value delivered by our highly complex and important institutions.

22. It is worth noting when considering value for money that most Chairs and independent members of university governing bodies receive no pay themselves. Chairs or non-executive directors of equivalent sized private sector organisations are often extremely well rewarded and indeed the same is the case in public sector organisations such as NHS Foundation Trusts where Chairs and NEDs are remunerated. This is in an era where increasing obligations and responsibilities are being piled on to governing bodies around academic assurance and PREVENT to name just two of many examples. Many chairs devote up to two days a week to their universities, some even sit on the Boards of sector organisations and have varied valuable experience from both within and outside the sector.

23. However, the challenge from the Minister is, how can institutions and the sector ‘ensure that vice-chancellor pay levels are fair and justified, and that governance arrangements around remuneration are up to date’.

VAL0071

24. CUC will play its role in that – as we have stated we will debate at our Plenary the key issues and explore some of the tough questions around benchmarks, transparency, bonuses and the governance of remuneration. If CUC members agree on the need to develop more guidance then we’ll work collaboratively with colleagues in the sector to develop that guidance in a way that is practical and helpful. Such guidance would be intended to be available to all providers of higher education and apply to the pay of all senior staff (as defined in current Accounts direction) in institutions e.g. all those earning over 100k .

25. The guidance itself, amongst other things, might suggest:

a. Remuneration should be based on weight of a role which is determined by on complexity, impact, autonomy, and knowledge and skills required

b. Vice Chancellor remuneration should be disclosed in actual numbers, and broken down into base salary, allowances, variable/performance pay, and the cash value of benefits-in-kind, pension

c. Institutions should explain how senior staff’s remuneration relates to the weight of their roles, including the institution’s characteristics and the role’s levels of accountability

d. Institutions disclosing senior staff’s personal objectives and performance metrics for the previous year, along with an explanation of how their performance was judged against them

e. Institutions annually publishing the multiple of the remuneration of the Vice-Chancellor and the median earnings of the institution’s whole workforce

f. The inclusion of co-opted independent HR specialists onto remuneration committees as normal practice

26. We are under no illusion that production of such guidance will make all

the headlines go away, yet we believe it can provide a useful model for how co-regulation can work in the HE sector – with institutions themselves developing appropriate guidance on important elements of governance, which is then available to the sectors regulators to monitor implementation of.

27. If our members agree that we should produce such guidance, then we would expect to produce a draft for consultation by Christmas, carry out a full consultation in the new Year with a view to having a final version agreed by our membership in April, for implementation in the academic year 2018-19. Conclusion

VAL0071

28. Our universities are a tremendous national asset, transforming lives through the teaching they undertake, driving social mobility and equipping the UK’s workforce with higher-level skills that the economy needs. Institutions in all parts of the country carry out world-class research that helps to tackle global challenges, and generate the ideas and expertise that encourages innovation and improves our health and wellbeing. They act both as a thriving export industry and deliver soft power to the UK by the influence they generate – both through the ideas they produce and the relationships they create. This success story is based on a diverse range of autonomous institutions.

29. It is critical to sustain this success that institutions can recruit, retain, and reward those leaders that are responsible for that success. Whilst we accept that improved guidance could be developed, we are sure that any other changes that adversely affect either diversity or autonomy will ultimately damage the sector and reduce the value it delivers to students and society. We reject any suggestion that there should be an explicit cap on the pay of Vice-Chancellors or senior staff – these are decisions that only institutions, with their detailed understanding of the markets they operate in and their long-term strategy can make. Of course, they need to be able to justify those decisions and be transparent. However, any move to put a ceiling on senior pay could have very negative consequences- every institution would accelerate to the cap and the best people would go elsewhere.

October 2017

VAL0059

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Education

HIGHER EDUCATION IN ENGLAND Our higher education (HE) system is world-renowned: 16 UK HE institutions feature in the top 100 of the QS World University Rankings 2018, with four in the top ten.1 Over 1.8 million students benefitted from HE in England in 2015/16.2 Graduates, employers and tax-payers all benefit in different ways from English higher education. The diverse range of HE providers make significant contributions to local communities and the economy.

1) VALUE FOR MONEY FOR THE WIDER ECONOMY a) Research indicates that a 1% increase in the share of the workforce with a

university degree raises long-term productivity by between 0.2% and 0.5%; and around 20% of UK economic growth between 1982 and 2005 came as a direct result of increased graduate skills accumulation.3

b) Higher-level skills correlate with productivity: there is a strong connection

between the proportion of a local population with higher level skills (level 4 and above) and the area’s productivity. In the year to 2015 universities made a strong contribution to national productivity, generating over £95 billion, or 2.9% of GDP. HE is a key exporting sector with a strong trade surplus. Exports were estimated at £13.1 billion in the academic year 2014/15.4

2) VALUE FOR MONEY FOR STUDENTS

a) In 2016, working age (aged 16-64) graduates earned on average £9,500

more than non-graduates, while postgraduates earned on average £6,000 more than graduates.5 Graduate outcomes data continues to show the value of a higher education qualification. In 2015/16 94.2% of full-time first-degree leavers who graduated from English HEIs were in employment and/or further study six months after graduation.6

b) Research shows that HE can act as an agent for social mobility and graduates

can earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes after tax.7                                                             1 QS Ltd, World University Rankings 2018 (2017) 2 HESA Student Record 2015/16 3 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, The relationship between graduates and economic growth across countries (2013) 4 Universities UK, The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy (2017) 5 Department for Education, Graduate Labour Market Statistics 2016 (2017) 6 Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Employment of leavers summary: UK Performance Indicators (2015/16) 7 Department for Business Innovation and Skills, The Impact of University Degrees on

VAL0059

c) Employer demand for graduates continues to rise; every year for the past

five years more businesses have expanded their graduate intakes than have cut back on graduate recruitment, cumulatively raising the number of graduate openings. Over the past 12 months more than eight in ten businesses (85%) have maintained or increased their levels of graduate recruitment.8

Higher education funding and student finance:

2.1 The current student funding system seeks to remove financial barriers for anyone hoping to study at university. Financial support is available to meet the upfront costs of university tuition and to support living costs. Contributions back in to the system are income contingent; they are made by graduates once they are earning over the earnings threshold, at a rate of 9 per cent of their earnings above the threshold. The balance is written-off after 30 years.

2.2 The changes to the student finance system since 2012 have significantly

increased contributions from higher income students to help fund higher education. In the pre-2012 system students overall contributed a minority of the cost of their higher education; in the post-2012 system they contribute over 50% of the cost.

2.3 The taxpayer subsidy in the system is currently around 30% of the annual

loan outlay for undergraduate higher education and this will rise to 40-45% with the changes government recently announced (described in the section below). Most of the subsidy is realised in the form of writing off balances. The system is designed to be sustainable and fair to both taxpayers and graduates, and it is progressive in that higher earning graduates pay proportionally more than lower earning graduates.

2.4 The current funding model ensures that England’s universities are

sustainably financed and has enabled the Government to lift the cap on numbers of people benefitting from a university education. The OECD’s 2014 annual report ‘Education at a Glance’ described England as one of the very few countries that has developed and implemented a sustainable approach to higher education financing.

2.5 On the 9 October 2017 the Government confirmed the earnings threshold

above which individuals will be required to make contributions to the cost of their education with effect from April 2018, and the maximum tuition fees for the 2018/19 academic year. From its current level of £21,000 the threshold will rise to £25,000 for the 2018-19 financial year. Thereafter it will be adjusted annually in line with average earnings.

2.6 The new threshold will apply to those who have already taken out and will

take out loans for tuition and living costs for full-time and part-time

                                                            the Lifecycle of Earnings: Some further analysis (2013) 8 CBI & Pearson, Helping the UK Thrive, Education and Skills Survey (2017)

VAL0059

undergraduate courses in the post-2012 system and those who took out or will take an advanced learner loan for a further education course.

2.7 The lower threshold for variable interest rates for post-2012 student loans

will also rise to £25,000 on 6 April 2018, and the upper threshold will rise to £45,000 from £41,000 on the same date. Both the repayment and variable interest thresholds will be adjusted annually in line with average earnings thereafter.

2.8 In 2018-19 around 600,000 borrowers will benefit from the threshold

changes, seeing their repayments reduced by up to £360 in that year. Most of those 600,000 borrowers will also have a lower rate of interest applied. The number of borrowers benefitting will continue to increase in future years as more students enter the student finance system.

2.9 Maximum tuition fee caps will be maintained at 2017/18 academic year

levels in the 2018/19 academic year. For HEFCE funded providers that have a current Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) award and have an access agreement with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses will remain at £9,250 in 2018/19. For HEFCE funded providers that have a current TEF award but do not have an access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses will be £6,165 in 2018/19. For HEFCE funded providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses in 2018/19 will remain £9,000 for providers with an OFFA access agreement and £6,000 for providers without an OFFA access agreement.

2.10 Maximum fee loans for all new students and eligible continuing students

who started their full-time courses at publicly-funded providers on or after 1 September 2012 will be maintained at £9,250 in the 2018/19 academic year. For continuing students who started their full-time courses before September 2012, maximum tuition fee and fee loan caps at publicly-funded providers in 2018/19 will be maintained at £3,465.

2.11 For HEFCE-funded providers that have a current TEF award and have an

access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses will be £6,935 in 2018/19. For HEFCE-funded providers that have a current TEF award, but do not have an access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses will be £4,625 in 2018/19. For HEFCE-funded providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses in 2018/19 will be £6,750 for providers with an OFFA access agreement and £4,500 for providers without an OFFA access agreement.

2.12 Maximum fee loans for all new students and eligible continuing students

who started their part-time courses at publicly-funded providers on or after 1 September 2012 will be maintained at £6,935 in 2018/19.

2.13 For all new students and eligible continuing students who started their

full-time courses on or after 1 September 2012 and are undertaking courses at private providers that have a current TEF award, the maximum

VAL0059

fee loan will be £6,165 in 2018/19. For private providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan for full-time courses will be £6,000 in 2018/19.

2.14 For all new students and eligible continuing students who started their

part-time courses on or after 1 September 2012 and are undertaking courses at private providers that have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan will be £4,625 in 2018/19. For private providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan for part-time courses in 2018/19 will be £4,500. The Government will set out further steps on HE student financing in due course.

3) OUR REFORMS TO DRIVE VALUE FOR MONEY

Accountability and student choice:

3.1 The latest survey from the Higher Education Policy Institute shows that more students believe they are receiving poor value for money (37% up from 32%). Holding providers of higher education to account for performance and value for money has been a key objective of the HE reforms that the Government set out in the 2016 HE White Paper and enacted in the Higher Education & Research Act 2017 (HERA). The 2016 White Paper continues to guide our work as the OfS has launched a consultation on the new regulatory framework. HERA will create the essential conditions for HE to continue to be successful, by building on the sector’s strengths, and recent reforms such as the TEF, in addressing the ongoing challenges within HE.

3.2 The Government has already taken steps to remove barriers to HE and give

students greater consumer power by shifting since 2010 to a more student-funded HE system, supported by tuition fee loans. However, through HERA and the OfS’s regulatory framework the Government can ensure the regulatory system works for fee-paying students supported by the taxpayer, as well as putting all types of provider on a level playing field.

3.3 The ability for students to make informed choices sits at the heart of the HE

reform agenda, which will improve quality of provision and ensure that students receive value for money from providers. To support students to make informed choices, the Government is ensuring that better and broader information is or will be made available about a range of areas. These include:

a) better information about teaching quality and outcomes (see TEF section below);

b) a new transparency requirement on institutions to publish data about the diversity of the student body at key stages of the university process, supporting the Government’s commitment to ensure that the opportunities of the education system are open to all (see section on Widening Participation below); and

3.4 The new regulatory framework (through HERA) will put all providers on a

level playing field and deliver value for money protections for students and

VAL0059

taxpayers. The reforms will improve teaching quality, and foster innovative and flexible forms of HE provision. Planned enhancements in the student finance package for part-time students coming in 2018/19 will also help. These changes will help create the conditions for HE, within a wider tertiary education approach, to be more responsive to demands of local, regional and national industry particularly in the context of leaving the European Union.

3.5 HERA provides an opportunity to transform the provision of accelerated two-

year degrees. The Government also has new powers to introduce appropriate fee arrangements for these faster courses. Students will benefit from lower overall tuition and maintenance costs, and a quicker return to the labour market. For HE providers, these reforms will create the incentives needed to drive significant expansion of accelerated degrees. The Government will work with the sector to promote the benefits of this form of provision and will consult later this autumn on detailed proposals.

3.6 The Government is supporting innovative models provision, for example the

new Dyson Institute of Technology, which opened to its first cohort of students this September. It will help to provide the skilled engineers the economy needs. Students at the Institute will have the chance to study on a cutting edge engineering degree apprenticeship programme, delivered in partnership with Warwick University. Dyson aims to take advantage of the HE reforms, which will give high quality institutions a direct route to degree awarding powers and university status in their own right.

The Office for Students:

3.7 The HE system in England has undergone many changes over the past 25

years. There has been a marked rise in the number and diversity of providers as former polytechnics and colleges of higher education have been granted university status, and caps on student numbers have been relaxed. This has led to the emergence and growth of new, smaller and more specialist higher education providers, which are not in direct receipt of public funding, known as alternative providers (APs). Today, there are over 3009 providers who previously received HEFCE funding directly, and over 700 APs10 offering higher education courses.

3.8 To bring the regulatory system up to date with the sector, a new single

market regulator, the OfS, is being created which will operate a comprehensive new regulatory framework taking on board the funding functions of HEFCE and the access and participation functions of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). Value for money, for students and the general taxpayer, will be a key priority of the new regulator. One of the OfS’s general duties will be that, when carrying out any of its functions, it must have regard to the need to promote value for money in the provision of higher education by

                                                            9 HEFCE - http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/register/search/Overview 10 Alternative providers of higher education: the market and students in 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternative-providers-of-higher-education-the-market-and-students-in-2014

VAL0059

English HE providers (section 2(1)(d) of HERA). The OfS must also have regard to use its own resources in an efficient, effective and economic way. This will be integral to ensuring value for money for registered providers that will fund some of the regulator’s operating costs through their annual registration fees.

3.9 The OfS will be formally established in January 2018 and start operating as a

regulator from April 2018, with all regulatory functions operational by August 2019. It will ensure that the interests of students and taxpayers are protected through the operation of its new risk-based regulatory framework and single entry gateway (‘the register’) that will strengthen competition and choice for students and create a level playing field. A consultation on the proposed regulatory framework has been launched, with responses due by 22 December. Value for money for students is one of the important objectives that the OfS will seek to deliver, and the consultation will explore this.

3.10 The OfS will deliver value for money for students by:

a) protecting the quality and standards the Government expects from English

higher education;

b) requiring action on widening access and participation to charge over £6k tuition;

c) holding governing bodies to account, including through a requirement to publish a statement on the steps they have taken to ensure value for money for students and taxpayers; and

d) improving transparency so that students know what they should expect and can effectively challenge providers who do not deliver on their commitments.

3.11 In addition, providers in the ‘Approved’ categories must comply with

additional principles in relation to regularity, propriety and value for money, to ensure that providers act prudently in the administration of public resources, and secure value for public money.

3.12 The OfS will also use registration conditions to make sure governing bodies

are accountable for promoting value for money. Under the management and governance condition, providers in the Approved categories will be expected to be demonstrably responsible for operating openly, honestly, accountably and with integrity, and will be required to publish a statement on the steps they have taken to ensure value for money for students and taxpayers which provides transparency about their use of resources and income. Providers should design this statement to allow students to see how their money is spent, following examples from other sectors, such as Local Authorities, publishing breakdowns of how Council Tax is spent. This will facilitate provider accountability, enable public scrutiny and allow students to make sure they are getting what they pay for. Where there are substantial concerns the OfS may carry out an efficiency study to scrutinise whether a provider is providing value for money to both its students and the taxpayer.

VAL0059

3.13 The OfS will be able to act on specific areas where there are value for money concerns across the sector. For instance, the consultation sets out the actions that the Government proposes OfS takes on senior staff pay.

3.14 The OfS will also champion freedom of speech. Within the law, this is the

cornerstone of higher education. Since 1986 universities have been responsible for securing freedom of speech and through HERA we extended this to all providers registered with the OfS. The recently published regulatory framework consultation proposes to go further with a public interest principle, built into a condition of registration with the OfS, requiring the governing body of a provider to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within its institution.

3.15 If a provider fails to comply with the freedom of speech principle then, as

with all public interest principles, this would breach the registration condition. The OfS has a range of interventions at its disposal, such as imposing specific conditions or formal sanctions against the provider including monetary penalties, suspension from the register or deregistration. The OfS can also publicly call out providers who fail to comply with this principle and protect freedom of speech.

Quality Assurance:

3.16 A key element of the new approach to securing quality of provision will be a

change in focus away from prescribing the systems and processes that providers must have in place, to instead being very clear on the outcomes that all providers must aim to secure for their students. This will ensure that all students, from all backgrounds, will receive a high quality academic experience; and ensure that providers are accountable for ensuring that students’ hard won qualifications hold their value.

3.17 The OfS will regulate to enable and create space for innovation, including

different types of provision, for example part-time and distance learning, whilst ensuring baseline quality requirements are met and other risks to students are mitigated. The aim is to ensure students receive high-quality education and the reputation of the sector remains protected. A risk-based approach to regulation ensures that while all providers meet high and robust baseline requirements, OfS can vary its regulatory effort depending on risk.

3.18 Students work hard to earn their degrees and have the right to expect

reliable standards between providers and over time, including by the sector addressing grade inflation. The sector is responsible for setting these standards. To facilitate this, the Government has called upon the sector to define standards above the threshold (such as degree classifications, like firsts) such that a student can have confidence that their qualification is of a recognised standard beyond pass/fail.

3.19 In parallel to this consultation, the UK-wide Standing Committee for Quality

Assessment has issued a consultation on revised expectations for the UK Quality Code. The proposals in that consultation are designed to reflect the importance of securing outcomes for students rather than focusing on how these are achieved. The consultation demonstrates how the Quality Code

VAL0059

could be applied across England and the Devolved Administrations, whilst reflecting the different regulatory approaches.

3.20 The intention is for the OfS to task a new designated quality body, should

one be deemed suitable for designation, to work with the sector to design a new Quality Review system that provides a sound basis for the assessment of the quality and standards registration conditions.

3.21 Ensuring qualifications hold their value over time and that there are the

strongest possible standards within and between providers, coupled with the wider quality and standards reform work set out above, will provide a stronger focus on value for money for students. An example of this is tackling grade inflation. By reducing grade inflation, providers can avoid devaluing qualifications and students can be assured that they are receiving a high quality academic experience. The Minister for Universities in his recent UUK speech11 challenged the sector to take swift action to define and agree sector recognised standards for all classifications of degree.

3.22 In response, the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assurance will ask the

sector to develop sector-wide generic level descriptors – for classifications beyond the threshold – which will give us ‘sector-defined’ standards which can then be assessed under the HERA. The Committee will also undertake further diagnostic work (including more on the causes of grade inflation) and develop and publish an ‘assurance statement’ for standards, including information relating to transparency of data and trends. This work will be a 12-month programme up to September 2018.

3.23 The Government has also stated its intention to tackle essay mills. In September 2017 the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and the National Union of Student (NUS) published guidance on Essay Mills. This represents the first set of comprehensive advice for providers and students on the subject. HE providers, as autonomous organisations, are responsible for handling matters of this nature. As part of their responsibility for assessing the academic performance of their students, it is their responsibility to develop and implement policies to detect and discourage plagiarism. The HE sector takes this issue very seriously. However, where providers fail to adequately address a problem when it arises, there is a clear risk to academic standards. That is why the Minister for Universities expects the OfS to encourage and support the sector to implement strong policies and sanctions to address this important issue in the most robust way possible.

Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF):

3.24 In November 2014 the consumer organisation Which? found that three in ten students think that the academic experience of higher education is poor value.12 In introducing the TEF in 2016, England is leading the way in recognising and rewarding teaching excellence and delivering value for money for students. The purpose is to give students clear information about

                                                            11 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/jo-johnson-speech-to-uuk-annual-conference 12 Which?, A degree of value: Value for money from the student perspective (2014)

VAL0059

where teaching quality is best and where students have achieved the best outcomes. This information will help them make better-informed decisions about their choice of HE provider. This influence on student recruitment will drive up standards of teaching across the sector by giving providers a clear incentive to improve in order to attain the highest rating. A recent survey by Universities UK found that, over the last two years, nearly 50% of responding institutions had taken the TEF into account when taking decisions relating to teaching and learning strategies and practice13.

3.25 The TEF places a strong focus on student and graduate outcomes, and in

particular progression to highly skilled employment. This outcomes focus has recently been strengthened through the inclusion of earnings data from the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset. It also considers other elements, including non-continuation rates, feedback from students and other evidence submitted by the provider to build up a holistic picture of teaching. If providers pass the baseline quality standard, they are rated Gold, Silver or Bronze by a panel consisting of senior academics, students and employer representatives, which is chaired by Professor Chris Husbands, Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University.

3.26 Participation is voluntary and almost 300 providers took part in the first trial

year, the outcomes of which were published on 22 June 2017. This included all but two English universities and over 100 colleges and private providers.

3.27 As well as TEF at an institutional level, the Government is also proceeding

with the development of TEF at subject level, beginning with two pilot years in order to test different models. The first full assessments for subject level TEF will take place in Academic Year 2019/20.

3.28 The Government has carried out a “lessons learned” exercise of the TEF

provider-level trial conducted in 2016/17. This demonstrated that the process operated in a fair and transparent way and that the results are generally perceived as credible and reflect teaching excellence across the sector. A survey of their members published by Universities UK in August 2017 similarly reported general confidence that the overall TEF process was fair.14 The Government made a small number of changes as a result of this exercise and the impact of these will inform the future operation of the TEF until an independent review is completed. The Government anticipates that the review will take place in academic year 2018/19, and will influence the assessment specification for academic year 2019/20.

3.29 The principal purpose of the TEF is to improve teaching and to give students

clear information about where they are likely to get the best teaching and outcomes. Initial indications are that many universities are actively promoting their TEF awards and that the reputational incentives associated with the TEF are likely to be a strong driver of behaviour. Furthermore, given that surveys have shown the importance students attach to teaching

                                                            13 Which?, A degree of value: Value for money from the student perspective (2014) 14 Universities UK, Review of the Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2: Process, results and next steps (2017)

VAL0059

quality15, the Government will be consulting this autumn on whether the TEF should be made compulsory for all providers (in registration categories Approved and Approved Fee Cap).

HE senior staff remuneration:

3.30 Senior staff pay has increased significantly over recent years. In 2015/16, the median salary of a vice-chancellor in the UK was 6.4 times more than that of the average higher education institution staff member.16 In the same year, a vice-chancellor’s average remuneration package (including other benefits such as bonuses and pension contributions) was over £280,000. The highest paid vice-chancellor received £451,000.17

3.31 The Government has consistently used its annual grant letter to the Higher

Education Funding Council for England to call on universities and their remuneration committees to exercise restraint on senior staff pay.

3.32 Higher education providers are autonomous institutions, and they are solely

responsible for setting the salaries of their staff. However, with public funding as the sector’s most significant single funder there is a legitimate public interest in the efficiency of these providers. This includes senior staff pay. There is a risk that increasing salaries divert money away from a provider’s core mission of teaching and research. Exceptional pay can only be justified by exceptional performance.

3.33 Value for money for both students and taxpayers is of the utmost

importance. Therefore, the Minister for Universities and Science has announced that the Office for Students will act to ensure transparency in the justification of senior staff pay.

3.34 There will be a new OfS ongoing condition of registration requiring providers

to publish information on the number of staff paid over £100,000 per annum, and to explain the justification for pay above £150,000 with reference to performance against outcome measures.

3.35 Arrangements will be made for the publication of data on senior staff

remuneration, including in relation to protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. Where issues with senior staff pay lead to substantiated concerns over governance, the OfS will be able to arrange for a study designed to improve effectiveness, economy and efficiency in the management or operations of a provider.

3.36 The OfS will be working alongside sector bodies to improve performance. The

Government has called on the sector to work through the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) to develop and introduce a new Remuneration Code.

                                                            15 HEPI & Unite Students, Reality Check: A report on university applicants’ attitudes and perceptions (2017) Hobsons, International Student Survey 2017: Welcoming the World, Maintaining the UK’s status as a top global study destination (2017) 16 Source: Universities and Colleges Employers Association 17 Source: Times Higher Education Vice-Chancellor Pay Survey 2017.

VAL0059

The Government expects this code to focus on encouraging greater independence of remuneration committees, the publication of the pay ratio of top to median staff pay, and explanations of top pay increases that are greater than increases in average pay. The CUC has confirmed that it plans to take forward the development of this code.

Widening Participation:

3.37 Widening Participation remains a priority for this Government. It is in everyone’s interest that anyone with the talent and potential should have the opportunity to access and succeed in HE.

a) England’s sustainable student finance system has enabled record numbers of disadvantaged young people to benefit from HE. In 2016 disadvantaged 18 year olds in England were around 74% more likely to enter HE than they were in 2006.18 The proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds going into HE is up from 16.2% in 2013 to 20.2% in 201719 and the application rate for disadvantaged English 18 year olds has increased to a record high (22.5%)20.

b) But there is more to do, including on the progression of disadvantaged students to more selective institutions and ensuring that the participation (retention, success and progress) of some of these students is better.

c) The Government’s most recent guidance to the independent Director of Fair Access (DFA) asked the DFA to prioritise Government goals and work with the most selective institutions to improve the progression of disadvantaged students to these institutions, amongst other target groups.

d) HE providers charging fees over £6k must have an Access Agreement and through the latest round of Access Agreements, universities have committed to spend £860 million to continue improving access and success for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

e) OFFA looks to institutions to invest wisely in widening participation, basing their decisions on robust evaluation plans and evidence. They expect institutions to provide information on how they use evaluation and reflective practice and the expertise they draw on to help them make their investment decisions.

3.38 The Government recognises that there is a difference in access attainment and retention for some groups of students, including at the most selective institutions, which is why HERA introduced a wider suite of policy initiatives: a) transparency duty to guarantee unprecedented access to applications,

offers, acceptances, completion and attainment information broken down

                                                            18 UCAS, 2016 End of Cycle Report (2016) 19 UCAS, Daily Clearing Analysis: POLAR3 (14 September 2017) 20 UCAS, UK application rates by the January deadline: 2017 cycle (2017)

VAL0059

by gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background; so all students can make an informed choice about which university they attend;

b) statutory duty on the new regulator - OfS - to have regard to equality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation in HE – covering the whole student lifecycle for disadvantaged and traditionally under-represented groups, not just access;

c) the creation of a “Director for Fair Access and Participation” within the OfS, responsible for approving Access and Participation Plans (replacing Access Agreements) on the OfS’ behalf;

d) alternative student finance products to potentially support the participation of students who, for religious reasons, might feel unable to take on interest-bearing loans;

e) Embed the TEF which will explicitly assess providers on how well they are delivering positive outcomes for students from disadvantaged groups.

FURTHER INFORMATION The Department for Education would be pleased to supply supplementary information on any of the points made in this submission or new lines of inquiry derived by the Education Committee.  

October 2017 

VAL0017

Written Evidence submitted by the Engineering

Professors’ Council

Introduction

1. The Engineering Professors’ Council (epc.ac.uk) represents the academic

engineers in the UK, with 81 university engineering faculties as members

comprising over 6,500 academic staff. All branches of engineering are

represented within the membership.

2. Our primary purpose is to provide an influential voice and authoritative

conduit through which engineering departments’ interests can be represented

to key audiences such as funders, influencers, employers, professional bodies

and Government.

Executive summary

3. The EPC believes that the Industrial Strategy depends on engineering and

related disciplines, and that Government should invest in engineering in

higher education that will lead to enhanced UK industry capability and

competitiveness.

4. The UK desperately needs more engineering graduates and the cost to

educate them represents a worthwhile investment providing good value for

money for both the taxpayer and the individual. Indeed, any value for money

calculation should consider the economic risk of failure to generate an

adequate supply of engineering skills.

5. The EPC recognises the need to share costs fairly between the general

taxpayer and the individual student, but asserts that engineering courses are

currently subsidised at an institutional level, meaning that the lowering of

university fees generally would be likely to have a negative impact on the

delivery of engineering education.

VAL0017

6. The EPC calls for adequate maintenance support for engineering students,

who generally have more contact time than their peers and, therefore, less

capacity to earn while studying.

7. The EPC recommends consideration of targeted allocations for all engineering

disciplines.

8. We believe it is important to balance any focus on salaries as a key indicator

of value for money with softer measures based on whether students achieve

goals, learning gain and social mobility.

9. The EPC urges caution if DLHE and/or the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes

dataset were to become a proxy measure for quality service either

intentionally or unintentionally.

10.We welcome focus on retention, in addition to recruitment, in terms of both

HE participation and graduate employment measures.

11.The EPC welcomes efforts to remove barriers to access, especially for the

most deprived, and welcomes the introduction of Degree Apprenticeships,

which are likely to attract individuals from groups underrepresented

elsewhere in HE. However, we have concerns that the funding in this area

may prove inadequate.

12.We believe that support for those underrepresented in HE should be directed

at early education choices, including Government investment and regulator

(OfS) involvement in impartial, sustained and incremental careers education

in schools.

13.The EPC would like to draw the Government’s particular attention to gender

inequalities in engineering, which require focused, funded, interventions.

14.There is scant evidence of poor teaching practice in engineering courses. On

the contrary, there is considerable evidence from academic studies, employer

demand and student satisfaction to suggest teaching practice is generally

highly effective.

VAL0017

15.TEF is unlikely to have a significant impact on engineering, not least because

its metrics do not relate to actual learning outcomes that might be influenced

directly by better teaching. The EPC believes that it would be better to

measure genuine inputs such as the proportion of teaching staff who are

qualified to teach.

16.Government and the regulator could do more to incentivise embed work-

related and work-based learning into courses.

Value for money

17.Engineering graduates represent good value for money. Engineering

graduates have better outcomes than their peers across all years for which

data is available.1

18.Successful engineering graduates deliver increased societal productivity and

engineering students themselves see a greater dividend throughout their

careers as a consequence of their degree.

19.However, a shortfall of engineering graduates is well documented, with

EngineeringUK quoting a conservative estimated shortfall of 20,000

engineering graduates each year in the UK2. Furthermore, the Royal Academy

of Engineering cite that, of the 32 standard occupations listed in the Home

Office Shortage Occupation List, half are either in engineering sectors such as

civil, mechanical and electrical, or in allied professions.3

20.The EPC believes that the Industrial Strategy depends on engineering and

related disciplines, and that Government should invest in engineering in

higher education that will lead to enhanced UK industry capability and

competitiveness.

                                                            1 http://epc.ac.uk/destination-of-leavers-from-higher-education-dlhe 2 http://www.engineeringuk.com/media/1355/enguk-report-2017.pdf 3 http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-a-future-outside-the-eu 

VAL0017

21.We have, in previous consultation responses, cited concerns about the future

of engineering in Higher Education and the wider impact on society through

research, innovation, skills shortages and economic impact.

22.The EPC agrees that more engineers are needed to address the skills gap.

The UK must provide the resources to increase the capacity and to plug the

pipeline shortage, either by cutting costs or increasing the funding available.

23.The EPC recognises the need to share costs fairly between the general

taxpayer and the individual student. However, engineering HE courses are

expensive, where the tuition cost of offering a degree in engineering typically

outstrips the funding available.

24.While the high cost of engineering courses is nominally reflected HEFCE price

group funding, targeted allocations for very high-cost STEM subjects

currently only include Chemical engineering, Mineral, metallurgy and

materials engineering (generally subject line H8).

25.At present, engineering courses are systematically cross-subsidised in

universities by other degree programmes, international student fees or

research funding.

26.The EPC recommends consideration of targeted allocations for all engineering

disciplines.

27.While the EPC supports measures to reduce the cost and perceived cost of

higher education for all students and recognises the need for equitable

student maintenance support, the EPC consider the lowering of university

fees and introduction of differential fees across disciplines would be likely to

have a negative impact on engineering delivery.

28.In addition, there is a particular need for adequate maintenance support for

engineering students. On average, Engineering courses involve a workload of

30 hours per week, with contact time – particularly lectures – outranking

most other subjects (with the exception of health subjects and the physical

VAL0017

sciences)4. That leaves engineering students with far less time than most

students to supplement their student loans with earned income.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

29.Graduate outcomes data provides helpful evidence to Engineers in

demonstrating their value for money with regard to outcomes.

30.However, while engineering graduates tend to earn high salaries, there is a

danger in being too focused on salary premiums as the main positive

outcome from HE.

31.There is a danger of unintended consequences, such as (a) incentives for

engineering students to be steered towards jobs in finance that pay even

more than engineering roles and for which they are well qualified; (b)

admissions practices that chase after students with high earning potential

owing to pre-existing social capital, rather than aptitude or potential; and (c)

incentives to move away from research and academic roles on which future

growth depend.

32.It is important to balance any focus on salaries as a key indicator of value for

money with softer measures based on whether students achieve goals and

learning gain, and on social mobility.

33.These mechanisms are useful to capture an overview of the impact that

higher education has on learners, employers and the wider economy.

However, they do not necessarily reflect an individual student’s experience

while engaged in higher education.

34.The EPC urges caution if the increased significance of DLHE and Longitudinal

Educational Outcomes data for measuring teaching quality through the TEF is

to be extended to demonstrating the long-term value of the higher education

experience for individuals (i.e. DLHE and the Longitudinal Educational

Outcomes dataset also become a proxy measure for good quality service).

                                                            4 http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-Student-Academic-Experience-Survey-Final-Report.pdf

VAL0017

35.The EPC awaits the impact of new questions and routing in the Graduate

Outcomes survey to allow deeper insights into graduates pursuing non-

traditional career paths, such as those developing creative portfolios.

36.The EPC welcomes the increased time-lapse following graduation before

measuring graduate outcomes. However, we would caution that measuring

access to (and level of) employment does not reflect the long-term challenge

of retention in the workplace.

37.Consideration should be given to measuring retention over a graduate’s

career.

Social justice in higher educations and support for disadvantaged

students

38.The EPC welcomes efforts to remove barriers to access, especially for the

most deprived.

39.We would steer Government to consider initiatives to tackle disadvantaged

student’s non-completion rates, as well as widening access.

40.The EPC is committed to support to members in this area, in particular with

our work on Degree Apprenticeships, which are likely to attract individuals

from groups underrepresented elsewhere in HE.

41.To this end, we believe that support for those underrepresented in HE should

be directed at early education regarding HE choices, including: impartial

careers advice, investment in the recruitment and training of career advisors;

CPD for teachers on education routes, including engineering.

42.Careers education should be delivered by professional, well informed

practitioners in combination with a range of awareness- and aspiration-

raising activities. Careers education should be sustained and incremental

(building on previous interventions) throughout schooling and beyond.

VAL0017

43.Engineering has a good record in attracting certain ethnic groups and

students from less advantaged groups. Black & ethnic minorities represent

24%5 of engineering & technology undergraduates.

44.Gender, however, is a real problem in engineering. Women only represent

15% of engineering & technology undergraduates and only 6% of the

engineering workforce.6

45.Graduate outcomes data7 highlights one of the biggest gender gaps in

engineering and technology graduate earnings.

46.Despite this inequality, Government investment in HE engineering continues

to represents good value for money.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

47.There is scant evidence of poor teaching practice in engineering courses. On

the contrary, there is considerable evidence from academic studies, employer

demand and student satisfaction to suggest teaching practice is generally

highly effective.

48.The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC)8 sets

out the competence and commitment required for professional registration9

as an Engineering Technician (EngTech), Incorporated Engineer (IEng) or

Chartered Engineer (CEng). It also includes examples of activities that

demonstrate the required competence and commitment. The requirements

for the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP)10 in

engineering are set out in line with UK-SPEC. AHEP sets out the standard for

degree accreditation. It also outlines the purpose and application process for

universities that wish to secure or maintain accreditation of their

                                                            5 http://www.raeng.org.uk/inclusivecultures 6 http://www.raeng.org.uk/inclusivecultures 7 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-by-degree-subject-and-university 8 http://www.engc.org.uk/ukspec 9 http://www.engc.org.uk/professional-registration/ 10 http://www.engc.org.uk/ahep 

VAL0017

programmes. The Approval of Qualifications and Apprenticeships Handbook

(AQAH)11 describes the approval process and required output standards for

the purpose of technician registration (EngTech or ICTTech).

49.The EPC is confident that the quality and effectiveness of teaching in

engineering is regularly measured using an-outcomes based approach

through AHEP.

50.TEF is unlikely to have a significant impact on engineering, not least because

its metrics do not relate to actual learning outcomes that might be influenced

directly by better teaching.

51.The EPC believes that, in addition to measuring outcomes, teaching would be

better enhanced by measuring genuine inputs such as the proportion of

teaching staff who are qualified to teach. (This may not necessarily be the

same as having a teaching qualification.)

52.The Government and regulator could also do more to incentivise embed

work-related and work-based learning into courses.

The role of the Office for Students

53.The EPC suggests that the regulator could do more to incentivise embed

work-related and work-based learning into courses.

54.Degree apprenticeships may help to address this, but we have wide concerns

about various aspects, not least whether the funding may prove inadequate

as there is no reason why degree apprenticeships should be less expensive to

deliver than other degree programmes. Indeed unit costs may be higher

(until programmes become better developed at least) and payment terms for

learning providers are less reliable.

55.We support the Office for Students taking an active role in the external

approval of degree apprenticeships to support efficiency in the sector.

                                                            11 http://www.engc.org.uk/standards-guidance/standards/approval-of-qualifications-and-apprenticeships-handbook-aqah/

VAL0017

56.The EPC would also urge OfS to support engineering awareness campaigns

with advice for career practitioners, students in schools and parents.

October 2017

VAL0060

Written Evidence submitted by EPI, Education Policy

Institute

The House of the Common’s Education Committee has recently launched an

inquiry into value for money in higher education. In this submission, the

Education Policy Institute proposes the issues which ought to be considered,

rather than providing recommendations on specific policies.

Summary: The perception of value for money in higher education has worsened

over the past few years, which is concerning at a time when university

population is expanding at a high cost for the taxpayer. The government should

take a wider view of what constitutes value for money, to include social benefits

beyond just monetary returns. The government should also carefully consider

the impact of factors beyond the control of universities when considering the

value for money of individual institutions. Further research is needed on how the

benefits of value for money vary across population groups and whether higher

education provision could be made more diverse to reduce costs whilst also

meeting the needs of students.

1. Participation in higher education is at a record high

1.1 This consultation is timely; the participation of young people in higher

education has increased dramatically over the past fifteen years, with almost

half of our young people now going to university – see figure 1. Alongside

this increase in participation we’ve seen significant increases in graduate’s

contribution to their education. Most students now leave university with a

debt of around £50,000 and the taxpayer, through the government, absorbs

a substantial part of that financial burden, around 31 per cent according to

the latest estimates. The government’s recent announcement that tuition

fees will be frozen at the current level of £9,250 and the repayment threshold

lifted from £21,000 to £25,000 has, in part, reversed the trend towards

VAL0060

greater graduate contributions. The rate of public subsidy is estimated to go

up from 31 per cent to 45 per cent.1

Figure 1. Higher Education Participation Rate (Adult participation Index

1990-2000, Higher Education Initial Participation rate 1999-2015)2 3

2. Avoiding a narrow approach to value for money

2.1 The Education Committee takes the Higher Education Academy and HEPI’s

Student Academic Experience Survey as a starting point to this inquiry,

interpreting its findings as warnings which warrant a direct response.

2.2 The report certainly gives the government and the wider community

reasons for concern. However, it also sets out the limitations faced by

universities in tackling the relative perceptions of poor value for money,

as many factors behind these perceptions are arguably beyond the control

of universities.

                                                            1 Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2017, ‘Higher Education finance reform: Raising the repayment threshold to £25,000 and freezing the fee cap at £9,250’ https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN217.pdf 2 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020708/text/20708w20.htm, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/participation-rates-in-higher-education-2006-to-2016 3 API = Age Participation Index, HEIPR = Higher Education Initial Participation Rate  

VAL0060

2.3 The report highlights that student experience varies across social profiles,

and that factors such as ethnic group, financial status, accommodation

and sexual orientation impact students’ perceptions of value of the

education they receive.

2.4 This is relevant as the perceived value for money is defined in the report

as the gap between expectations and the student actual experience, which

seems to be influenced by individual and societal factors beyond the reach

of universities. This is not to say universities cannot play a role in

improving student satisfaction, as the survey shows value for money

varies between universities, as well as across subjects, but it stresses the

need for a comprehensive understanding of what value for money is.

3. Understanding individual and wider societal benefits of university

education

3.1 Individual benefits

(a) Salary

i. There is evidence that university graduates tend to earn more than

workers without such qualifications, although this varies across subjects

and it is unclear whether the premium will remain stable in the future,

especially given the expansion in university population.4

ii. The recently published LEO (Longitudinal Education Outcomes) data show

that salaries vary largely between degree subjects. For example, median

salaries 5 years after graduation range from £20,000 for creative arts and

design graduates to £47,000 in medicine and dentistry. However, there is

also variation within subjects. Although the median earnings for

economics graduates 5 years after graduation is circa £33,000, income

                                                            4 Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2017, ‘The puzzle of graduate wages’. https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn185.pdf

VAL0060

ranges from £17,000 to £61,000.5 Further research is needed into the

causes of this large variation, and whether it is directly related to the

quality of universities and subjects taught. 6

iii. It is notable that some vocational qualifications seem to have higher

returns than university education. For example, the earnings of former

level 5 apprentices are much higher than those for graduates one year

(£27,000 vs £18,000) and two years after completion (£28,000 vs

£20,000). However, the cohort of completers of level 5 apprentices is

small and it is difficult to say at this point whether the premium will be

sustained over the years.7

(b) Employment and employability

iv. While only 2.9 per cent of graduates were unemployed in 2016, the figure

was 5.9 per cent for non-graduates.8 However, it is also true that the UK

is one of the OECD countries where overqualification (30.2 per cent) and

total qualification mismatch (42.6 per cent) is the highest, which means

many UK graduates end up in jobs that require qualifications below

degree level. Although the concept of overqualification is a contested one,

underemployment does not seem a reasonable outcome to a university

degree, especially when the taxpayers bear a large proportion of the

burden.9 In addition, a recent survey shows that employers believe that

                                                            5 Department for Education, 2017, ‘Employment and earnings outcomes of higher education graduates by subject and institution: experimental statistics using the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data’. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619512/SFR_18_2017_LEO_mainText.pdf 6 Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2016, ‘Heterogeneity in graduate earnings by socio-economic background’. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8235 7 Education Policy Institute, 2017, ‘Apprenticeships for Northern Growth. Challenges, Trends, and Current Reforms’. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Apprenticeships-for-northern-growth-web.pdf 8 Department for Education 2017, ‘Graduate labour market statistics 2016’. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/610805/GLMS_2016_v2.pdf 9 OECD, 2016, ‘Skills Matter. Further results from the Survey of Adult Skills’. https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills_Matter_Further_Results_from_the_Survey_of_Adult_Skills.pdf

VAL0060

workers who have taken an apprenticeship are more ready for work than

graduates (64 per cent and 52 per cent respectively).10

(c) Non-monetary individual benefits

v. Even though the proportion of graduates who are underemployed (or

overeducated) is relatively high in the UK, there are still benefits for

graduates compared to non-graduates even when their jobs require lower

qualifications. It is true that graduates working in a job which does not

match their qualification tend to earn less and that they show lower levels

of job satisfaction than those who are well-matched. However when

compared to non-graduates, mismatched graduates have higher levels of

trust, are more involved in civic activities such as volunteering and are

more politically involved than non-graduates. 11 Therefore, it can be

argued that there are other non- monetary returns to a university degree,

and that value for money should not be limited to earnings but should

include all the benefits experienced by graduates.

3.2 Wider economic benefits

i. It is undeniable that universities are an asset to the British economy.

Universities employ 404,000 people, equivalent to 1.3 per cent of the UK’s

workforce, and sustain 430,000 jobs in their supply chains. Furthermore,

its gross value added in the UK economy is £52.9 billion (2.9 per cent of

GDP), ignoring the inputs from other industries; otherwise the, gross

output is £95 billion. On top of that, the knowledge obtained by graduates

is estimated to boost productivity by 28 per cent or £63bn compared to

their pre-degree productivity.12

                                                            10 Sutton Trust, 2017, ‘Life lessons’. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf 11 Green, F., Henseke, G., 2017, ‘Should governments of OECD countries worry about graduate underemployment?’. 12 Universities UK, 2017, ‘The economic impact of universities in 2014/15’. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/the-economic-impact-of-universities.pdf 

VAL0060

4. Value for money, but for whom?

i. However one defines value for money, graduates generally benefit from

their time at university and completing their degrees. Nevertheless, not all

groups are equally likely to progress into university, and this is a

challenge from a social justice perspective.

ii. The Education Policy Institute recently analysed the latest access figures

on higher education participation and found that a smaller proportion of

pupils who received free school meals are progressing to university than

those who did not receive free school meals (24 per cent and 41 per cent

respectively). More disadvantaged pupils are now progressing into

university than in previous years, but this trend is common to the whole

cohort which means the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their

peers has remained largely unchanged since 2007-08.

iii. The research also identified regional variations and found that

disadvantaged pupils from Inner London are actually more likely to

progress to university than more affluent pupils outside of London (but

not Outer London) as 45 per cent of disadvantaged pupils in Inner London

progressed to higher education, whereas the highest figure for more

affluent pupils outside of London was just 41 per cent, in the West

Midlands, with the lowest being 37 per cent in the South West. A separate

EPI research suggested that whilst these variations can be largely

explained by ethnic composition and prior attainment, some geographical

effect remains.13

iv. EPI also found differences between independent and state sectors for

pupils taking A-levels or an equivalent qualification. 63 per cent of state

school leavers progress into higher education, whereas the rate is 85 per

cent in the independent sector – a gap of 22 per cent. 14

                                                            13 Education Policy Institute, 2017, ‘The path to higher education: is there a London effect?’. https://epi.org.uk/analysis/path-higher-education-london-effect/ 14 Education Policy Institute, 2017, ‘The path to higher education: obstacles remain for the disadvantage’. https://epi.org.uk/analysis/path-higher-education-obstacles-remain-disadvantaged/

VAL0060

v. Further evidence from EPI, based on the latest UCAS figures, found

significant decreases in the number of mature and part-time applicants.

This is most likely linked to less generous funding arrangements for this

mode of study. This particularly affects Black applicants, as a very high

proportion of applicants from this ethnic group are mature students and

have probably been more affected by the current arrangements than

other groups. 15 It is therefore important to investigate not only what the

value for money of higher education is, but to what degree benefits are

equally distributed across different socioeconomic groups.

5. A heterogeneous university population has not translated into more

diverse university provision

i. The qualifications universities are offering have become more

homogenous over time, not less. Increasing numbers of undergraduate

students are enrolled today in full-time first-degrees, while part-time

study and other undergraduate qualifications (HNCs, HNDs and

Foundation Degrees) have been plummeting.

ii. The number of students in part-time education, especially at the

undergraduate level, has been falling over the past seven years. In

2015/16, there were about 55 per cent fewer first-year part-time

undergraduate students than in 2007/08, while the number of first-year

undergraduate students in full-time mode had increased by around 14 per

cent over the same period.

iii. A similar trend applied to postgraduate education, where the number of

part-time students started to plummet in 2009/10 though it started

recovering in 2013/14 and has flattened out in recent academic years.

Therefore, the gap between part-time and full-time has been widening

over the past seven years.

                                                            15 Education Policy Institute, 2017, ‘Latest UCAS data signals the post-Brexit challenger for higher education’. https://epi.org.uk/analysis/latest-ucas-data-signals-post-brexit-challenges-higher-education/ 

VAL0060

Figure 2. Evolution of first year undergraduate enrolments to UK

universities (all domiciles)16

iv. The provision of HNCs and HNDs in mainstream higher education (HE and

FE providers) has also been going down over time. 15,800 students were

reported to be studying in higher education institutions in 2015/16, down

by 23 per cent from 2011/12. Though more students may be studying for

HNCs and HNDs in alternative providers. In any case, they represent no

more than 2.5 per cent of total undergraduate numbers in English

universities, according to a recent response to a parliamentary question.

Foundation degrees have followed a similar downward pattern.17 18

v. The government should consider whether more diverse provision would

match better the needs of many students. Students in alternative and new

providers seem to be more satisfied with the value of their degree despite

fewer contact hours, according to the HEA and HEPI student academic

experience survey.

                                                            16 HESA data, different academic years. 17 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/file/6430/download?token=6vQ6VAan 18 Education Policy Institute, 2016, ‘Remaking Tertiary Education’. http://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/remaking-tertiary-education-web.pdf

VAL0060

vi. Some new providers seem to be improving student experience through

innovation and alternative approaches to learning.

vii. Some offer smaller class sizes than traditional providers, better

connections with employers and a provision that matches the needs of the

local economy. There is some reasonable fear TEF’s approach to teaching

quality is too narrow, which may hamper innovation in teaching.19 Finding

the right balance between accountability and innovation may be a

necessary step to improve provision.

viii. A more diverse degree offer may help improve the value for money that

graduates get from their studies. Although accelerated and shorter

degrees may not work for everyone, it may be a good alternative for

some students and a way to make provision cheaper.

ix. Students surveyed by YouGov for UK2020 reported receiving around 11

hours of teaching contact per week, and generally universities in the UK

provide 23 weeks of teaching a year for a full-time degree. In line with

this, 60 per cent of students reported spending eight months or less in

their student accommodation per year. The government could explore

where accelerated or shorter degrees may add value to higher education

provision and, if university infrastructure is underused outside term times,

whether it would be possible to ensure facilities are used to increase

efficiency in the system.20

October 2017

                                                            19 Policy Connect, 2017, ‘One Size Won’t Fit All’. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/sites/site_pc/files/report/1005/fieldreportdownload/hec-web.pdf 20 UK2020, 2017, ‘Timebomb. How the university cartel is failing Britain’s students’. http://www.uk2020.org.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2017/09/JRTI5635_UK_higher_education_timebomb_report_170830_WEB.pdf 

VAL0076

Written Evidence submitted by NUS, National Union of Students Introduction 1. The National Union of Students (NUS) is a confederation of 600 students'

unions, amounting to more than 95 per cent of all higher and further education unions in the UK. Through our member students' unions, we represent the interests of more than seven million students. NUS represents students and students’ unions to ensure that education is transformative, skills and learning are accessible and every student in the UK is empowered to achieve their potential.

2. NUS welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Education Select

Committee, and would be pleased to provide further evidence in any way the Committee may see fit.

Executive Summary 3. NUS believes that the post-2012 system of funding higher education

principally through the tuition fee-loans system is fundamentally misconceived, and fails to work for students, graduates, universities or for wider society.

4. The system is failing on its own terms – it has not delivered improvements in choice or in quality, and it is has not offered a sustainable funding solution. This can be seen as affirmed with the growing crises in political confidence – including within government – as to the viability of the system, and continued tinkering around the edges of the funding system.

5. While NUS welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcements with regard

to uprating of the repayment threshold and freezing the tuition fees for 2018/19, what this reaffirms is that the system is indeed broken and unsustainable. And it furthermore breeds a lack of confidence for students in the future of student funding – highlighting that they can have little confidence or surety about the nature of the loans that they are taking out.

6. Such changes to the repayment terms and conditions also ensure that it is

very difficult to determine the cost of the system for future taxpayers. In this sense, the question of value for money for the system can be seen to be left begging on all fronts.

7. Fundamentally, NUS holds that the system is broken, and must be revisited

entirely. We therefore very much welcome this committee’s work in this area, as we also welcome the government’s proposals to hold a review of the system. Any such review must be independent, must look at post-compulsory education holistically and must involve appropriate student representation in a way that the Browne Review failed to.

VAL0076

8. The Prime Minister’s announcement of a higher education funding review has not been followed up with any positive announcement. It is also unclear how this view relates to the 2017 Conservative Party commitment to hold an independent review of tertiary education funding. NUS believes that clarity as to this matter must be offered by the government as a matter of urgency.

9. This committee’s inquiry crucially also looks beyond higher education funding

to also look at issues of student support, the role of the OfS, destination data and teaching quality, amongst other matters. It is a deep regret that the abject failure of the government’s funding system necessarily distracts attention away from these incredibly important matters, and as such NUS is pleased to have the opportunity to engage on these too.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 10. NUS holds significant concerns with the inclusion of graduate earnings in the

Teaching and Excellence Framework (TEF) as introduced in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

11. The link between graduate earnings and teaching quality represents a very particular, limited, view of the role and value of higher education.

12. Moreover, there is little to suggest that graduate earnings will meaningfully reflect

teaching quality. Graduate earnings are far more likely to reflect other social factors that are dependent on what jobs you may get after graduating – most notably, gender, race, socioeconomic background, and whether the graduate has a disability or not.

13. For instance, women are more represented in higher education and do better on

most attainment measures, but their earnings significantly drop behind men within six months of graduation.

14. For this reason, NUS furthermore strongly opposes any link between tuition

fees and graduate earnings. Given that graduate earnings are not just related to the course a student takes, but are heavily linked to race, gender and class. There is a risk that the policy could inadvertently incentivise universities to game these metrics by taking in students from demographics that are more likely to go on to earn at a high level through their subsequent careers.

15. We are concerned that there may be unintended consequences which follow from the use and promotion of graduate earnings data as a tool for student choice and information. While LEO data is a hugely informative data set in the right circumstances, without robust contextualisation there is a risk it could shift applicant behaviour away from regions of the UK where salaries are comparatively lower and shift the regional take up of HE in the UK.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 16. Inequities in accessing higher education, in flourishing within higher

education, and in outcomes upon graduation continue to be profound. It is

VAL0076

right that the committee focus attention here, where far more work is urgently required.

17. What is more, rather than addressing these issues, successive government policies risk further exacerbating these challenges – from the scrapping of the Aim Higher programme, which supported progression from compulsory to post-compulsory education; to the scrapping of maintenance grants; to cuts to the disabled students’ allowance.

18. There is clear evidence that the cost of living has meant students are

currently, and have consistently been, excluded from or impoverished by post-compulsory education. There are clear links between financial support policy and practice, student wellbeing, socio-economic background, and retention.

19. Financial concerns have a significant impact on a students’ life beyond their education, affecting their wellbeing and mental health too. Research has found that three quarters of students who receive maintenance loans worry about the amount of debt they accumulate while studying and one in seven state that they have been chased by debt collectors as a result of missing rent payments.1

20. Nearly half of Britain’s students are worried about having enough money to

buy essential groceries such as bread and milk from an average weekly food spend of £24.32 and many students are struggling to get together enough money to cover basic costs such as travel and textbooks.2

21. These financial concerns mean that 77 per cent of students have to work

during term time to try and support themselves financially, and yet we know that excessive working hours are associated with poor wellbeing.3 A recent survey undertaken by NUS found 71 per cent of students were stressed and anxious about money.4

22. The cost of living and student debt also impacts significantly on a students’

spending power. NUS’ report Debt in the First Degree had revealed that 43 per cent of graduates expect their standard of living to be affected by the cost of repaying their student loan; only 27 per cent disagreed. 66 per cent of graduates thought that the repayment of their student loan would mean it would take longer for them to save up for a house, and 46 per cent of graduates thought they would have to wait longer before paying into a pension.5

23. The evidence clearly shows that a student’s ability to survive and thrive in

higher education is severely constrained by financial concerns. It is a situation that has been greatly exacerbated by the government’s decision to cut maintenance grants.

1 https://www.intelligentenvironments.com/students-struggling-debt-stress-university/ 2 http://www.nusextrablog.org.uk/student-finance-survey-results/ 3 https://www.endsleigh.co.uk/press-releases/10-august-2015/ 4 http://www.nusextrablog.org.uk/student-finance-survey-results/ 5 NUS, Debt in the First Degree, 2015

VAL0076

24. Maintenance grants were a key element in improving the accessibility of university for the most disadvantaged young people, but they were scrapped by the government in 2016. In the last decade participation in Higher Education by the poorest students has increased, but this was partly driven by the availability of non-repayable grants. A 2014 study by the Institute of Education showed that a £1,000 increase in grants created a 3.95% increase in participation.6

25. In 2012, when the coalition government increased tuition fees, its own

equality impact assessment stated: “The increase in maintenance grants for students from households with the lowest incomes, the National Scholarship Programme, and additional fair access requirements on institutions wanting to charge over £6,000 in graduate contributions should ensure that the reforms [i.e. higher fees] do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately.”7

26. UCAS figures released earlier in 2017 pointed to a dramatic fall in student

application numbers from the UK and abroad, fuelling fears many students are being put off higher education due to the financial implications. Whilst the application rate of young people living in areas least represented in higher education has increased to 22.1 per cent for the UK, it is important to put this figure into context.

27. Whilst there has been an increase in the number of students from

disadvantaged backgrounds entering university, there has also been an increase these students leaving university before completing their studies. A report by OFFA found that in 2015-16, 8.8 per cent young, full-time, disadvantaged undergraduates did not continue in higher education beyond their first year - up from 8.2 per cent the year before.8

28. Moreover, the scrapping of maintenance grants also means that poorer

students will be left with the highest amount of debt. Research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies found that the scrapping of maintenance grants hits the poorest 40 per cent of university students in England the hardest, as they will graduate with debts of up to £53,000 for a three year course, rather than £40,500 at present.9 This is because poorer students will be receiving more in means-tested student loans (covering the cost of losing grants and reflecting the slight increase in maximum support available). As such, they will owe substantially more after they graduate than their richer peers. While the Government is right that these proposals will give poorer students more ‘cash in their pockets’ while they are studying, this comes at great expense in the long run.

29. In order to ensure that higher education remains accessible to all

students NUS strongly recommends the re-introduction of maintenance grants.

6Money for nothing: Estimating the impact of student aid on participation in higher education, 2014 7 Interim Equality Impact Assessment: Urgent reforms to higher education funding and student finance, p. 5 8 OFFA, Outcomes of access agreement monitoring for 2015-16, 2017 9 http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN174.pdf

VAL0076

30. Disabled Student’s Allowance (DSA) has been cut by around £30 million. The government have said they want to see education providers meet their duty to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. In particular universities are now responsible for providing what is considered to be non-medical support.

31. We know that the added cost of being disabled is high. Scope have found

that it costs disabled people on average an extra £500 per month to live. Being a disabled student is also expensive. If they need adapted accommodation, accommodation for carers, or extra-large rooms, disabled students do not receive financial support to meet this extra cost from the institution or disabled student’s allowances. With many students waiting for DSA support to be granted or struggling to get the support they need from their institution, they have to manage themselves often with great financial and emotional cost. For students with higher support needs who have had their social care budgets cut (particularly after the Independent Living Fund was scrapped), in order to maintain their independence and complete their studies, they have to try to plug the gaps in funding with their own money.

32. We are concerned that this combination of factors will make post-16 study impossible for many disabled people.

33. NUS believes that support for disabled students should be properly

funded, and these students should not have to fight for or struggle without support in this process. While we have never supported the cuts to the disabled students’ allowance (DSA), we recognise that the previous system was not perfect and did not always provide the best outcomes for students. Overall we want to see support for disabled students that is high quality, timely, personalised, consistent, and linked to appropriate mechanisms for appeal and redress.

34. In addition, support from DSA or institutions must place student voice and

experience at the core, rather than solely meet the needs of the institution and provider industry. We urge both institutions and the government to have meaningful dialogue with a range of disabled students to ensure they are offering support that enables and empowers students.

35. There is a crucial need to monitor the experience of students, and we

continue to push for DfE to undertake a robust impact analysis of the cuts to DSA funding. It is also vital that applicants feel confident that they will be supported to access higher education, and so we would like the impact on applicants and potential applicants who have a range of impairments to also be monitored.

36. The current system of loan payments in England and Northern Ireland means

that maintenance grants and loans are paid at termly intervals throughout the academic year. These are roughly equal payments made at the start of each term, with dates advised by the University. Despite each termly payment being roughly equal, term length and costs throughout the academic year such as accommodation and materials are not. Due to the timing of payments students can have shortfalls during one term and excesses in another.

VAL0076

37. NUS research shows that many students find it difficult to budget and hardship funds see a spike in applications at the end of each term.10

38. The cost of living is an ever-increasing problem for students; maintenance loans should reflect the reality of students’ needs and should cover basic living essentials – including accommodation. NUS recommends that Student Finance England research and implement viable options for the provision of more flexible loan payments. This should include the opportunity for students to alter their payment schedule with each annual re-application.

Quality and effectiveness in teaching 39. There is emerging evidence to suggest that not all students are achieving a

truly transformative experience in UK higher education. Overall satisfaction levels and scores for the quality of teaching staff remain high in the National Student Survey (NSS), but lag behind in areas defined as ‘high impact’ learning activities: quality and frequency of feedback, academic support and interaction, clarity of expectations, and course organisation.11

40. 61 per cent of students feel that their course is at least in some ways worse than expected, and the most common reasons are poorly organised courses, a lack of support in independent study, and a lack of interaction with teaching staff.12

41. Survey evidence and attainment data suggests that this is accentuated for

black and minority ethnic (BME) students, international students and disabled students. Evidence from the US suggests that traditional delivery methods of higher education are failing to substantially improve students’ critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills.13

42. Assessment is often seen by students as a purely summative process: that is,

it measures what they have learnt at the end of a course or module. This is an aspect of assessment that is often overstated: it is possible for assessment to aid learning, as well as measuring it. Formative assessment and feedback are crucial for students to learn effectively, and well-designed formative assessments allow students to practice the skills they need in order to achieve the learning objectives of the programme.

10 NUS, Pound in Your Pocket, 2012 11 NUS: Comprehensive Guide to Teaching and Learning (https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/Comprehensive%20Guide%20to%20LT%20FINAL.pdf) 12 NUS: Comprehensive Guide to Teaching and Learning (https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/Comprehensive%20Guide%20to%20LT%20FINAL.pdf) 13 NUS: Comprehensive Guide to Teaching and Learning (https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/Comprehensive%20Guide%20to%20LT%20FINAL.pdf)

VAL0076

43. Shifting the balance of assessment away from summative and towards more formative enables assessment to be for learning, not just of learning. Frequent, detailed, personalised feedback on where students went wrong and how to improve for next time makes assessment a valuable tool for learning. “The change that has the greatest potential to improve student learning is a shift in the balance of summative and formative assessment”.14

The role of the Office for Students (OfS) 44. The OfS will be responsible for the assessment of quality and standards in

England, which is currently the responsibility of HEFCE and aspects of the system are carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency. Through the previous Higher Education Review method, students had significant input into the quality assurance system at a high level nationally. Many institutions have also advanced best practice around involving their students’ union and students in their own quality assurance and enhancement processes, which was encouraged through Chapter B5 of the UK Quality Code. The Quality Code is currently being reviewed and the UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment is consulting the sector on proposals for the future development of the Code.

45. NUS would like to see the proposals on how student engagement is captured in the revised Code strengthened, and this will be a focus of our response to the consultation. The Annual Provider Review process, which was introduced in 2016, does not currently engage students as extensively and systematically as the previous Higher Education Review process. In the revised operating model for quality assessment, HEFCE recognised that the ways in which each funding body gathers intelligence to develop its understanding of providers and the context in which they operate do not currently capture the views of a provider’s students in a systematic way. Therefore in 2016 HEFCE commissioned The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP), a specialist unit housed by NUS, to pilot mechanisms to effectively capture the views of students through the intelligence gathering aspect of Annual Provider Review. We understand the outputs from this pilot programme, along with other evaluative information on Annual Provider Review, will be used by HEFCE’s Quality, Accountability and Regulation Strategic Advisory Committee to make recommendations to OfS on the future operation of quality assessment in England.

46. NUS would like to see a continued focus on strengthening student voice in methods for assessing quality and standards when this becomes OfS’ responsibility, and we will seek to work with OfS and

14 NUS: Comprehensive Guide to Teaching and Learning (https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/Comprehensive%20Guide%20to%20LT%20FINAL.pdf)

VAL0076

other relevant bodies to continue to provide expert advice on how this could be achieved. OfS can recommend to the Secretary of State a body to be designated to perform certain quality assessment functions specified in HERA; although the exact role and approach this body will take to these assessment functions will be subject to agreement with OfS. OfS is currently consulting on whether the Quality Assurance Agency is suitable to be recommended as the Designated Quality Body, and NUS believes they are. The QAA has a strong history of working collaboratively and of engaging students in key elements of its work, as well as advocating for student engagement within providers’ own quality assurance and enhancement processes.

47. The work which is currently done by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and the

Director of Fair Access will become part of the regulatory framework enabled by OfS. Following the changes to higher education laid out in HERA, all providers which charge over £6,000 for their undergraduate courses must have an Access and Participation Plan (APP) in place which sets out their targets for widening participation.

48. As described above, if a commitment in the APP is found to be broken, then

the OfS will likely have the power to fine the institution. Currently, students’ unions should be able to feed in to their institutions’ Access Agreements, and the Office for Fair Access has been a champion of student voice.

49. NUS would like to see the OfS continue to safeguard and build up

regulatory powers around access and widening participation in the new architecture, and continue to champion students’ union input to the widening participation policy landscape at both a local and national level.

Contact NUS would be happy to discuss any aspect of this consultation further. November 2017

VAL0069

Written Evidence submitted by the Office for Students

1. The Office for Students (OfS) is the new regulator for the higher education sector in England. Sir Michael Barber was appointed as its Chair, and Nicola Dandridge as its Chief Executive, earlier this year. The OfS will come into existence on 1 January 2018, when it will acquire limited responsibilities to enable it to establish its new regulatory framework. It will become fully operational on 1 April 2018. This submission therefore focuses on the role of the OfS and anticipates its likely future strategy on value for money; the response from the Higher Education Funding Council for England covers the current state of value for money in higher education.

2. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA) provides the

legislative underpinning for the OfS. It sets the parameters for what the OfS can and cannot do in relation to value for money, including stating that the OfS ‘must have regard to […] the need to promote value for money in the provision of higher education by English higher education providers’ in performing its functions.

3. On October 19 2017, The Department for Education published a

consultation on the proposed OfS regulatory framework. The consultation closes on the 22nd of December; responses from students, the sector, and the public will play an important role in shaping the OfS’s response, so everything that follows needs to be considered in this context.

4. The consultation document sets out a number of proposals to ensure

students (and indeed tax payers) receive value for money from English higher education. The most pertinent proposals are listed below, along with references to the full proposals in the consultation.

5. When considering these proposals, it is important to remember that ‘value

for money’ means different things for different people. Teaching quality, academic support, and good facilities are all important inputs, and influence the perception of value for money for a significant number of students.1 For many, value for money means getting a good job and the career they want after higher education. On average, the sector already does this well: 94.2% of full-time first-degree leavers who graduated from English higher education institutions in 2015/16 were in employment and/or further study six months after graduation; in 2016, working age graduates earned on average £9,500 more than non-graduates, while postgraduates earned on average £6,000 more than graduates; and a woman’s lifetime earnings are greater, on average, by £252,000 if she is a graduate than somebody who completes their education with 2 or more A-levels, and for men the average lifetime premium is £168,000.23 The OfS will work to ensure the sector

                                                            1 Universities UK, Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university (2017) 2 Department for Education, Graduate Labour Market Statistics 2016 (2017) 3 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, Impact of university degrees on the lifecycle of earnings: some further analysis (2013) 

VAL0069

consistently delivers positive employment outcomes across the board, and pushes itself to constantly innovate and improve the outcomes it delivers for students.

6. There are also students for whom employability is not the primary reason

for higher education. There are many other ways, sometimes immeasurable, that higher education provides value for students, and the OfS will not lose sight of this. Knowledge for its own sake, enjoyment of study, and wider cultural and social experiences are all important aspects for many students, and the OfS will not lose sight of these. The OfS will tirelessly pursue employability outcomes and financial return for students, but it will not reduce higher education to a crude, transactional market.

7. What students value is as diverse as the student population of itself, and

the OfS will not pre-judge what students can articulate themselves. The OfS will take on board the views of students and their own interpretations of what value for money means for them. This work will likely be taken forward by the recently announced student panel, which will report directly into the OfS board.

8. As well as considering value for money from the students’ perspective, the

OfS will also address value for money in terms of the tax payer.

Proposals to promote value for money for students 9. Value for money, in one sense or another, cuts across the entire proposed

regulatory framework. The following list highlights proposals that may be of particular interest to the Committee, with paragraph references for the main consultation document.

a. The OfS will use baseline requirements for provision to ensure all

students, from all backgrounds, receive a high quality academic experience. This includes an explicit focus on employability in condition B3: “The provider must deliver successful outcomes for its students and these are recognised and valued by employers, and/or enable further study.”

See chapter 1, paragraphs 14 to 25 for a summary of the OfS’s approach, and conditions B1, B2, B3, C1 and C2 in the Gudiance)

b. Providers in the Approved categories will be required to be demonstrably responsible for operating openly, honestly, accountably and with integrity, and will be required to publish a statement on the steps they have taken to ensure value for money for students and taxpayers which provides transparency about their use of resources and income.

See condition A3 in the Guidance.

c. The OfS will deploy more effective information for students as a primary tool in ensuring students get value for money. Using both new information, such as Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes

VAL0069

Framework ratings for each subject at a provider, and better structuring and presentation of existing information, prospective students will have a clearer understanding of their range of choices when applying to university, particularly around the academic and graduate outcomes they can expect. Better information will help prospective students making choices in the short term, and – through market forces – will improve value for money for students in the future. These information efforts will be coordinated with other relevant groups, such as schools and the further education sector, to ensure information enables prospective students to make effective choices, rather than overwhelms them.

See chapter 2, paragraphs 81 to 89 and 94 to 95.

d. The OfS will use its powers to create an environment in which providers fully meet their obligations to students as consumers, and students are able to build an understanding of their corresponding rights. As a first step, the OfS will press providers to take appropriate steps to comply with consumer law in a way that is consistent across the sector, through a student contracts condition.

See Box E on page 34 and condition E4 in the Guidance.

e. On senior staff remuneration, the OfS has called on the sector to tackle extravagant pay packages, and will support the Committee of University Chairs in its development of a new Remuneration code. The consultation also proposes an ongoing registration condition requiring providers to publish the number of staff paid over £100,000 per annum, and to explain their justification for pay above £150,000.

See Box F on page 37, and condition E3 in the Guidance.

f. In order to protect the value of degrees in the long term, the OfS will annually analyse and arrange for the publication of information on grade inflation, and will challenge the sector where it is unwarranted.

See paragraphs 23 to 24.

10.Ensuring value for money for students is of central importance to the OfS, so much so that it is one of the four proposed objectives in the consultation (see Box C in the main document). Where there is a risk that students do not receive value for money above a high baseline, the OfS will act swiftly and decisively, using the full range of its powers (see chapter 5 part E for more detail for OfS’s interventions, and paragraphs 289 to 292 in particular for detail on when it will use them).

11.The range of interventions available to the OfS include enhanced

monitoring, the imposition of specific ongoing registration conditions, monetary penalties, suspension from the register and deregistration. Higher education institutions are autonomous bodies whose independence must as a matter of law be respected, but as their higher education provision gets

VAL0069

closer to the baseline requirements, their right to autonomy is superseded by the need to protect students.

12.Ensuring value for money for all students, from all backgrounds will be a

priority for the OfS. The proposals set out in the regulatory framework consultation form a robust approach to value for money, and the consultation period will be an opportunity for rich dialogue that will improve the proposals further.

13.If the Committee would like further evidence from the Office for students,

the Chair and Chief Executive would be happy to submit further written or oral evidence.

October 2017

VAL0020

Written evidence submitted by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) Summary 1. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) has a

perspective on value for money in higher education from its role as an independent student complaints review body and as part of the regulatory framework.

2. We have responded to this inquiry using our learning from complaints in the higher education sector over the last 12 years. The OIA sees a broad range of complaints and those arising from teaching quality and service issues, and course and campus closures, can raise concerns about value for money.

3. Our experience shows us that one key factor to shape the overall student

experience is managing students’ expectation from the outset. Achieving this can help reassure students that their course and experience offer value for money.

4. The HEA/HEPI survey1 notes that value is ‘being linked to a complex

combination of factors, not least a gradual change in what students expect from their experience given the level of fees being charged’. We have not seen a marked increase in complaints which correlates to the increase in fees, although complaints have become more consumer focused.

Background 5. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (‘OIA’) is

designated under the Higher Education Act 2004 as the operator of the complaints scheme for higher education students in England and Wales.

6. All higher education providers with degree awarding powers and those

offering higher education courses designated for student support funding are required to join the OIA. In future, all providers on the new Office for Students register will be required to join as well as those providing higher education courses leading to an award of an OIA member, where both are in England. A diverse range of higher education providers are now covered by

                                                            1 The 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey by the Higher Education Academy and the Higher Education Policy Institute

VAL0020

the OIA Scheme; from small, industry specific independent providers, to initial teacher training providers, to large further education colleges and universities. Our membership has increased from around 150 providers (2014) to over 700 providers (2017).

7. The OIA is free to students; it is funded by subscriptions from providers, determined by reference to size and type of provider, with a smaller case-related element.

8. Higher education students in England and Wales can complain to the OIA about their provider. The OIA has a wide remit to consider complaints from students about any "act or omission" of a member provider. This includes complaints about service quality, course provision, academic appeals and disciplinary and fitness to practise procedures. The OIA cannot look at complaints about academic judgment, but the majority of complaints to the OIA are about process and academic outcomes and are specific to the circumstances of the student (for example, whether marking and moderation procedures were correctly followed or how extenuating circumstances were taken into account).

9. Part of the OIA’s mission is to disseminate good practice which we do through initiatives such as the Good Practice Framework for Handling Complaints and Academic Appeals and a comprehensive outreach programme of workshops, webinars, case studies and visits to providers.

10.The OIA is an ombudsman scheme and not a regulator but it is part of the

regulatory framework for higher education in England and Wales. The OIA is independent of Government, the funding councils, higher education providers and students. However, the OIA liaises regularly with Government and works with other sector bodies to share information which contributes to our respective roles. The OIA is the alternative dispute resolution body for higher education complaints, appointed by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute under the European Directive on Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution.

11.Recourse to free, independent redress of unresolved complaints contributes

to an improved student experience. It provides students with an opportunity to resolve their concerns at no cost without having to go to court and without the need for legal representation. Dealing with complaints in this alternative dispute resolution context helps to redress the power difference between students and providers. Feedback from some students indicates that they are more willing to accept the decision of an independent and impartial review body like the OIA even if they do not agree with it.

VAL0020

Trends in complaints in higher education 12.Since 2005, the OIA has dealt with over 17,000 complaints from higher

education students. It is important to view this number in context. The OIA is an ombudsman of last resort; students must usually have complained to their provider, to give it an opportunity to put matters right, before complaining to the OIA. Many complaints will not reach the OIA because they are resolved by the providers concerned, through their own complaints procedures.

13.Students do not usually refer to ‘value for money’ when making their

complaints. Nevertheless, we receive a variety of complaints to which ‘value’ is relevant, for example complaints about the quality of teaching or supervision, facilities and the accuracy of prospectus.

14.Each year, we publish in our Annual Report information about trends in the

complaints that we dealt with in the preceding calendar year and the type of student who is most likely to complain to the OIA. The published data shows that students on vocational and professional courses are most likely to complain to the OIA. If something goes wrong for a student on this type of course, it impacts not just their student experience but also their future choice of career.

15.Similarly, a disproportionate number of postgraduate and non-EU

international students bring complaints to the OIA. Our experience suggests that postgraduate and international students are more inclined to persist with their complaint. The investment which they make in their studies is often substantial. Many have made a significant commitment in taking on their course and they may have higher expectations than their counterparts. International students pay higher fees and may also incur higher costs such as travel and, in some cases, visa applications. Postgraduate students have often put their careers on hold to pursue their studies. The family circumstances and sponsorship arrangements for these students may also mean that they are likely to be under greater pressure to ‘succeed’ on their course.

16.In 2016, there was a small increase in the number of complaints the OIA

received about ‘service issues’. This category encompasses issues such as facilities, course content compared to the prospectus, processing of visa applications, teaching hours or research supervision. The increase in these complaints may be due to the focus on consumerism around the higher education experience and the raised profile of consumer protection law in this area. A common theme running through many of these complaints is that the

VAL0020

students’ expectations are not being met. As the HEA/HEPI survey2 notes, meeting students’ expectations is key to their overall experience and to helping deliver value.

17.It is still too early to determine statistically significant trends in the

complaints that we have received about providers which have more recently joined the scheme (alternative providers, further education colleges offering higher education provision and initial teacher training providers), because the numbers are small. Nevertheless, through our range of outreach activities, we have engaged with many of these providers and their students will benefit from improved practices in internal complaints handling processes.

18.Providing students with accurate information about what to expect from their

course is essential from a consumer law perspective but also in managing the students’ expectations. In our experience, a student whose experience has not matched their expectations is more likely to complain, and feel that they have not received value for money, even if their expectations were not themselves reasonable.

Case Example 1

A student complained that half the modules on his course related to a subject he did not wish to study. He withdrew from the course and complained that he remained liable for a proportion of the fees.

The student had transferred to the course from a different degree programme at the same provider and had missed the pre-enrolment information sessions. However the prospectus gave clear information about the composition of the course. The OIA considers it reasonable for providers to expect individual students to take responsibility for researching a course before deciding to enrol on it. The Programme Leader gave the student advice on how he might approach his work to meet the requirements of the course and about options to change to a different degree programme.

The student withdrew several weeks into the course and had become liable for fees. The OIA found that the provider was entitled to charge 25 per cent of the fees under its regulations and that the complaint was Not Justified.

                                                            2 The 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey by the Higher Education Academy and the Higher Education Policy Institute

VAL0020

19.In some cases, a student may complain about a number of different issues related to their student experience. Each issue may be minor when considered separately, but when taken together can have a more significant impact upon the student. Providers do not always recognise this and, although they may acknowledge individual shortcomings in their services, they do not always provide effective remedies which take into account the overall effect on the student and their individual experience. Similarly, a fairly simple issue which has gone wrong can be aggravated by poor complaints handling or communication. Poor communication can have an impact on the student’s trust and confidence in a provider, in turn affecting the student’s overall experience and perceptions of whether they have received value for money in their experience.

Case Example 2 A group of 26 students raised a number of issues in relation to some of their modules including that the teaching ‘did not reflect a highly ranked teaching environment’. The provider acknowledged the issues and put in place practical remedies as the issues became apparent. However the provider’s approach to remedying the situation was piecemeal; that it failed to acknowledge that the accumulation of such issues was an indication that the programmes were suffering from general quality standard issues; and failed to acknowledge the resulting impact on the overall student experience. The OIA considered that the multiple issues encountered by students on the programmes reasonably undermined their trust and confidence in the provider and its quality assurance processes. We concluded that it would have been reasonable for the provider to have offered the students a more comprehensive apology and a financial remedy in recognition of distress, inconvenience and disappointment. We recommended £1,500 in compensation for distress and inconvenience for each student and an apology.

20.We find approximately half of the complaints that we review each year to be ‘Not Justified’ (56% in 2016, 59% in 2015). In other words, we consider that the provider concerned acted reasonably and followed its own complaints procedures appropriately. The proportion of complaints we find Not Justified suggests that providers are resolving many complaints internally. Many of our member providers have engaged constructively with us over recent years, as they embed the Good Practice Framework into their own procedures. Our increased focus on sharing good practice and the willingness of our member providers to engage with us and with each other, is essential in improving the student experience. Nevertheless, the fact that the student

VAL0020

complained to us indicates that they are not satisfied with how they have been treated by their provider.

Case Example 3 A student complained about the content and quality of her course, which fell below her expectations. The OIA found that the provider had taken the student’s concerns seriously and undertaken a detailed and thorough investigation. A number of the complaints related to changes in the course. The OIA looked at how these changes had been introduced and communicated to students. The prospectus made it clear that aspects of the course could change. The provider explained that some changes had been made because of staff movements and some to keep up with developments in a fast moving scientific field. Students were offered additional tuition. The provider concluded that the course was of the expected standard and quality for a degree course in this subject area, and that the changes improved it. That conclusion involved academic judgment. The OIA noted that the provider had conducted a thorough and detailed investigation, and that the provider had consulted the external examiner who had been positive about the changes. The OIA found the complaint Not Justified.

21.Each year we uphold, in whole or part, or settle around a quarter of the

complaints that come to us. For students, settlements can be particularly helpful if the student wants to continue with their studies. Where we uphold a complaint in whole or in part, we make recommendations to the provider concerned. The aim of the OIA’s recommendations is to place the student back in the position that they would have been in had the circumstances of the complaint not occurred. For example, we might recommend that the provider reconsiders a complaint, refunds some or all of a student’s fees, or pays compensation to the student for distress and inconvenience. We can also make recommendations that a provider should change its regulations or procedures or, for example, improve the marketing materials provided to students where we consider that they have not been sufficiently clear or not reflective of the course received.

VAL0020

Case Example 4 A group of 19 students complained that the provider had offered them an inadequate remedy for numerous issues about the organisation of the course and the poor management of facilities and resources. The OIA upheld the complaint and recommended that the provider amend its marketing materials, produce clear and unambiguous course information, provide the students with a partial refund of their course fees and pay each student financial compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience they experienced as a result of the provider’s failure to have properly investigated their concerns.

22.It is important that arrangements are in place to protect the interests of students in the event of course, campus or provider closure. Those arrangements should support the continuation of study of affected students, for example through transfer to another campus or provider, with credit transfer where appropriate so that students do not have to re-start their course from the beginning. Where continuation of study is not possible, the arrangements might provide for financial compensation where the student has incurred course fees or maintenance expenses. In our experience, course or campus closure is more common than a provider ‘exit’. Currently when a provider does exit the sector, this tends to be in a managed way rather than a sudden event.

23.Providers’ student protection arrangements, as with all complaints and

appeals processes, should be fair, transparent and accessible to all students. Students should know in advance that, in the event of course, campus or provider closure, contingency arrangements will be put in place to protect their interests. In the event that student protection arrangements need to be put into effect, these should be communicated to students in a timely and clear way. In our experience, student complaints arising out of, for example, the discontinuation of a course, often concern the way in which the changes were communicated.

Case Example 5 A student complained about a decline in the quality of her student experience at a provider’s campus following the decision to close it down. In her final year the student population on campus had reduced from some 1,800 students to 600. The student claimed that this depopulation of students and staff led to reduced student opportunities and facilities; and a negative atmosphere for students who were living on campus. She also said she had experienced stress and anxiety which had been caused by mismanagement of the campus transition.

VAL0020

The student signed a petition raising concerns about the diminishing quality of the student experience. Although the provider offered a Student Experience Enhancement support package the students remained dissatisfied and made a group complaint. The provider upheld or partly upheld aspects of the complaint and it made recommendations for improvement of practice and procedures but did not recommend any financial compensation or refund of fees. The student complained to the OIA and we decided her complaint was Justified. We concluded that the provider had not taken reasonable and appropriate steps to try to minimise the impact of the transition and there was delay and mismanagement of the students’ complaint. We accepted the student’s evidence that she had experienced stress and anxiety which was exacerbated by the acts and omissions of the provider. We recommended the provider pay the student £3,500 in compensation for distress and inconvenience; and provide an apology.

The future regulatory framework 24.The OIA is an independent body with a strong history of working with other

bodies in the higher education sector. Independent complaints handling arrangements play an important role in quality assurance. Complaints can, in some cases, suggest an underlying issue at the provider. Through our work, we gather information which identifies themes and concerns about quality and standards across the higher education sector. Currently, we have information-sharing arrangements with HEFCE, HEFCW and the QAA, as well as other relevant bodies, as appropriate.

25.We envisage that the OIA will work with the Office for Students (OfS) where it is appropriate to share information, consistently with data protection requirements, through a formal agreement such as a Memorandum of Understanding.

26.The OIA does not have coercive powers. Our authority is in part due to the fact that we are a sector-specific, independent ombudsman service recognised across the higher education sector in England and in Wales. This means that providers almost always accept any recommendations that we make when we uphold a student’s complaint.

27.Our work with our regulatory partners helps to inform improvements to the

quality of teaching and learning and the delivery of better outcomes for students across the higher education sector; factors which closely correlate to value for money.

VAL0020

28.It is important to remember that overall statistics are only part of the story.

Behind each complaint to us is a student who is not satisfied with something that their provider has done or not done. Each individual complaint is unique and of huge importance to the student concerned. Higher education can and should be life-changing. When things go wrong, the stakes are high; career opportunities, earning potential, lifestyle choices can all be impacted by levels of educational attainment achieved.

October 2017

VAL0019  

  

Written Evidence submitted by Open University Executive Summary 1. The Open University (OU) shares the Committee’s view that Value for Money

(VFM) is of critical importance to both students and the tax payer. We welcome the timeliness of this inquiry and the transparency it will bring to this important issue.

2. The value of the education we provide has always been a primary consideration for the OU. Indeed, the University is in the process of a transformation programme to ensure that we continue to deliver the kind of learning that is valued by our students and by employers. We see a triangle of interdependent values relating to education and training, those valued by:

Current and future economies Learners Employers

3. We make our response to this inquiry through the lens of part-time higher

education in England, and in the specific context of our own experience of the different higher education (HE) systems across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as the UK’s only four-nation university.

4. In response to this inquiry, the OU makes the following recommendations in the interests of people who have to learn while they earn: Scrutinise the value of part-time study just as thoroughly as full-time study

as part of this inquiry Consider values of HE beyond the purely financial, i.e. the benefits it brings

to health, wellbeing and indeed to broader society To bring the value of a higher education to more people in every part of

England and minimise any further adverse impact on social mobility:

o HMG should increase its focus on policies that encourage rather than discourage provision of high quality flexible learning options.

o HMG should create a new element of HEFCE (OfS) funding for widening access by disadvantaged adults aged 21 and over.

o HE providers should place a greater focus on gathering and reporting of evidence of what works to widen participation and improve success.

VAL0019  

  

o HMG should continue to develop graduate destination data so it becomes of value to all types of prospective student, not just young full-time students.

o OfS regulatory powers should serve to widen and not constrain student choice in terms of the mode of learning that best suits their circumstances.

o The OfS board should include representatives of providers who offer flexible forms of learning. It should be set up to focus on all types of students (current and future). Without this framework from the outset, policy and regulation will continue to centre only on full-time, young students.

o The OfS should widen the categories of transparency data that institutions are obliged to publish, under the Higher Education & Research Act 2017, to cover more characteristics, including age.

o The Office for Fair Access (OfS) could centralise a proportion of Access Agreement expenditure and, for example, offer payment-by-results contracts on collaborative activity targeting different student groups that are neglected in the current HE model.

Introduction 5. The Committee frames this inquiry partly in the context of students’ perceptions

of VFM, citing that a recent annual survey1 shows only a third of students believe their course offers them VFM and that numbers saying their university was “poor” or “very poor” value had almost doubled in five years.

6. The survey these percentages are drawn from is based on the perceptions of full-time students. Given that more than one in five English first year undergraduate students are studying part-time2, we urge the Committee to scrutinise the value of part-time study just as thoroughly as full-time study as part of this inquiry.

7. As the Universities Minister reiterated in July when he set out plans to secure VFM from the HE system in England3, the present Government considers there are three main elements of a successful higher education system – sustainability, sharing costs fairly and removing barriers, especially for the most deprived. We fully support these values and would argue:

                                                            1 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey 2 HESA 3 Securing value for money for students and taxpayers, 20 July 2017  

VAL0019  

  

On sustainability, that the part-time element of the current higher education system is not working

On sharing costs fairly, that from a part-time student perspective, relative to their full-time counterparts, the financial burden has not been shared equitably

On removing barriers, that: o HMG should consider that while finance is a much more significant

barrier for students who are 21 and over. They tend to be far more debt averse and have less disposable income, especially if from disadvantaged backgrounds.

o HMG should consider other key barriers alongside finance, including time constraints. Doing so will reinforce its stated commitment to prioritise student choice (and hence the value of HE to the student).

8. On tackling barriers so the benefits of higher education can be experienced by even more people who are 21 and over, we urge an increased focus on policies that encourage rather than discourage provision of high quality flexible learning options. This will make higher education possible for time-poor students already in work (the ‘earn and learners’), and for those who cannot study full-time for other reasons such as caring responsibilities, disabilities or long-term health conditions. Delivering greater choice is not just of benefit to the individual, but also, where applicable, their employer.

9. The barrier of time is not only about speedier options, e.g. more accelerated degrees. While they are essential as part of a sensible menu of flexible options for students, two-year degrees will only increase choice for those who can afford not to work for two years. That is not often a realistic option for the many students already in work. Other forms of flexibility, such making it easy to swap institutions and take your banked learning credit with you are just as important in increasing student choice, and hence value – for example, when a student or their partner has to move for work. Having more choice as to when they can start their study and where they can do it, including on the daily commute, will also be of value.

10. The inquiry specification alludes to broader considerations of VFM beyond value to the student, i.e. to the taxpayer and to productivity. Our response takes this broader view and, in the context of the changing demographics in England, we urge the Committee not to overlook values of HE beyond the purely financial – i.e. the benefits it brings to health, wellbeing and indeed to broader society. As the Universities Minister said in September: The benefits to the individual of university study go beyond the financial. Graduates also enjoy better health, longer life expectancy, and higher levels of

VAL0019  

  

civic participation.4 We note the ongoing research on this by the Institute for Adult Learning5.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data Value for money for the taxpayer and the exchequer 11.Many part-time students are in work and as such continue to pay NI

contributions throughout their studies. They are also more likely to reach the student loan repayment threshold sooner and hence more likely to repay in full.

12.The importance of ‘place’ is given much attention in the Industrial Strategy Green Paper. Part-time study allows students to remain at home and stay in employment, and hence continue to contribute to their local economy. Not only that, they start to bring the benefits of learning into the workplace from day one, with work-based assignments, etc., not just at the end of study. Their employer benefits from yet another distinctive plus of the ‘earn and learn’ model, it benefits others around them. Research undertaken by London Economics for BIS suggests that there is both direct and indirect spillover of skills and productivity, producing a halo education effect where the training of one person boosts the productivity of the whole team.

13.Part-time HE in England is a particularly cost-effective mode for the taxpayer and the Exchequer. In England, our 2015 analysis revealed a part-time first degree draws on 27% less public subsidy than a full-time first degree: the public funding for a first degree (adjusted for loan repayment and completion rates) for 2013/14 entrants was £16,200 for a part-time degree and £21,900 for a full-time degree.6

14.The direct public subsidy associated with a given size of tuition fee loan to a part-time HE student in England was estimated by the UK Government in November 2015 to be 5 percentage points lower than for full-time students. Indeed, analysis by London Economics has concluded that “the funding of (loans to) part-time students is approximately cost neutral to the Exchequer over the long-term”.7

                                                            4 Embracing accountability and promoting value for money in Higher Education, 7 September, 2017 5 https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/research/adult_education_wellbeing/  6 Unpublished analysis by the OU in 2015 based on HESA data, SLC Statistical First Release (2014-04), HEFCE Grants Tables 2013/14 (March 2015 release), England. Note, factors have changed since the analysis, e.g. published RAB charges and Student Opportunity Allocation funding 7 Jo Johnson, Hansard 10 November 2015, estimated a RAB charge of 40 per cent for part-time study and 45 per cent for full-time study. This was the last time the part-time RAB charge was reported separately. London Economics chapter in HEPI’s It’s the finance, stupid! (2015)

VAL0019  

  

15.In relation to the Government objective of removing barriers to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, part-time HE also has the edge in terms of VFM. The return on public investment for part-time HE students in England who have below-traditional qualifications on entry to HE is significantly higher than for average full-time students. For example, for male students the ratio of gross public benefits per pound of public subsidy was 15 for part-time students compared to 11 for full-time students.8

Value for money for the student 16.There is a common misconception that for students already in employment the

financial benefit (‘graduate premium’) of a higher education is significantly less. This is not so. For example, at the OU, the net earnings benefit of an OU undergraduate degree for students with non-traditional entry qualifications is £108,000 for the average 39-year-old graduate.9

17.Another misconception is that part-time study fee costs are generally pro-rata to full-time fee costs. Again, taking the example of the OU, the typical total tuition fees for a BA/BSc (Hons) degree for OU students in England graduating in 2015/16 was £16,200. This compared to £27,000 for full-time students in England as a whole – a difference of over £10,000.10

The value of the higher skills for employers and the economy 18.Employers report that 320,000 employees in managerial, professional and

associate professional roles in the UK – those occupations requiring higher level skills – lack proficiency in their current role.11

19.Even before factoring in any impact of Brexit or current skills shortages, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills projected that there would be employer demand for 7.7 million people to fill higher-skilled roles (managerial, professional and associate professional occupations) over the next 10 years. It will not be possible to meet this demand without determined steps to upskill the current workforce.12

20.The ‘career learning’ or ‘earn and learn’ model is one that can address the high-level skills challenges of a fast evolving economy, particularly given the context of the new norm of multiple careers over longer working lives. At the OU, 76%

                                                            8 London Economics (2014). 9 London Economics (2014). 10 OU Facts and Figures 2015/16 and OFFA 11 UKCES Employer Skills Survey 2015 12 OU analysis based on UKCES Working Futures 2014-2024 (2016). This refers to the total expansion demand and replacement demand in Standard Occupational Classes (SOCs) 1-3

VAL0019  

  

of our 131,000 directly registered students are ‘earning and learning’ in full-time or part-time employment.13

21.Research commissioned by the OU has found that online learning is positively received by employers14, who value in particular its:

Flexibility – it fits in with work schedules, employees’ work/personal life Consistency – it can provide consistent training over multiple

sites/dispersed workforce and therefore has greater impact on productivity

Training delivery – design, gamification, webinars, smart phones Effective for exams/testing progress (including learning analytics) Adaptability – useful in blended approaches that include face-to-face

learning Cost – lower than classroom/face-to-face training

22.The reach of online learning is important here as effectively it is ‘nationally local’

– addressing local high-level skills gaps wherever they arise. In England, the OU’s flexible ‘earn and learn’ model reaches significant numbers of learners in every single region. Indeed, OU student numbers equate to more than half the size of an average English university in all regions bar one.15 The exception is the North East which is half the size of the average region (the population per OU student in the North East is in-line with elsewhere in England).

The use of graduate destination data 23. Robust destination data should be readily available so it can inform student

choice. We welcome the ongoing development of the Department for Education’s experimental Longitudinal Education Outcomes Data (LEO) and have valued the opportunity to suggest ideas for its improvement. Our concern, with LEO and some other metrics, is that fundamental differences in the nature of full-time and part-time students are not considered at the outset, but retrofitted around a methodology based upon school leavers entering full-time HE. Examples of the unintended consequences, in the case of LEO data, are:

Earnings – most part-time students are already in work when they embark on higher education study and this must be taken into account for the part-time LEO metrics (in the latest LEO dataset, OU students have higher average upper earnings than even Russell Group students one year after graduation).

                                                            13 OU Facts and Figures 2015/16 14 OU Employer Research 2016 15 OU undergraduate and taught postgraduate students paying English fees. Average English university size 14,100.  

VAL0019  

  

Prior attainment – LEO methodology is based on students completing traditional A-levels in England after 2001/02, at 18. This limits significantly the dataset’s coverage of mature students.

Recorded ‘activity’ – Students with an activity status of ‘Activity not captured’ are those who have been matched to the Department of Work & Pensions database but have neither employment nor out of work benefits recorded. HE providers with, for example, a high proportion of students aged 21 and over, and of students with disabilities, will tend to have a higher proportion than others of students whose activity is not captured.

24. We hope to continue to engage constructively with DfE on ways to improve the robustness of the LEO methodology so that it becomes as informative for potential part-time students as it is already beginning to be for potential full-time students. We would be happy to share our suggestions on LEO and part-time students with the Committee if helpful.

25. If LEO is to be used in determining value for money and as a proxy for determining quality of provision then efforts must continue to further develop the metrics to ensure they work fairly for all types of student. As yet, for some types of prospective student, LEO remains a source of misinformation.

26. We recommend that more appropriate employment and earnings metrics are necessary for higher education modes other than full-time.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 27. As the Secretary of State for Education confirms: “… in Brexit Britain social

mobility is now no longer a 'nice to have', a 'good thing to do'. It is a cold, hard, economic imperative for our country”.16 Yet, unfortunately, the unintended victims of the 2012 HE reforms have been students who, if they had been able to access study at all, would only have been able to study part-time. Unlike full-time study, part-time study works well for students of all ages, and supports many from disadvantaged backgrounds (see Figure 1).

                                                            16 Speech by Justine Greening, Social Mobility Commission conference, 30 March 2017

VAL0019  

  

Source: HESA – 2015/16 first year undergraduate students at English HEIs by headcount.

28. Social justice and the goal of improving people’s lives to help them progress on the ladder of opportunity should be fundamental to the mission of our universities, and the focus should not be limited to the young. People who are 21 and over, many of whom can only study on a flexible basis, should also be able to reach their potential, and go as far as their talents will take them. 17

29. This premise applies to those with a disability too, as we stressed in our response to the DWP/DoH Improving Lives Green Paper, which had not acknowledged the importance of education and training in helping people with disabilities into work. Learners in prison are another group for which access to a higher education can be transformative, as we outlined in our submission to the Coates review of prison education.

30. Contrary to popular belief, the total number of English undergraduate entrants from low participation areas fell by 15% between 2011/12 and 2015/16. As a result there are 11,500 fewer English undergraduate students from low participation areas starting university courses each year than in 2011/12. This was driven by the 47% fall in entrants from low participation areas studying part-time, which outweighed the 7% increase in entrants from these areas studying full-time.18

31. Since 2011/12, a cumulative total of 52,000 part-time entrants from low participation areas in England have been “lost” due to the collapse in part-

                                                            17 Britain, the great meritocracy, Prime Minister’s speech, September 2016 18 HESA. “Low participation areas” are defined as POLAR3 Q1

VAL0019  

  

time numbers.19 Indeed, the drop in first year undergraduate students from low participation areas between 2011/12 and 2015/16 at the OU alone (6,950) outweighs the increase in first year full-time students from low participation areas in England as a whole (4,800).

32. Many people from disadvantaged backgrounds are aged 21 or over and can only ever take up HE study if financial barriers are addressed and they have flexible ‘learn while you earn’ options. You cannot widen access with a narrow lens. Thus, to bring the value of a higher education to more people in England and minimise any further adverse impact on social mobility, we recommend:

Creation a new element of HEFCE WP funding for widening access by disadvantaged adults aged 21 and over, the group whose numbers have fallen most sharply since the 2012 reforms.

Protection of HEFCE’s widening participation (WP) funding to institutions at 2017-18 levels.

A greater focus across the sector on gathering and reporting of evidence of what works to widen participation and improve success. Evaluation should be embedded across all providers, by use of the new OFFA toolkit20, for example.

The OFFA (OfS) could centralise a proportion of Access Agreement expenditure and, for example, offer payment-by-results contracts on collaborative activity targeting different student groups that are neglected in the current HE model.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 33.The OU delivers high-quality learning at scale, as evidenced by the strong ratings

it has gained for overall student satisfaction since the National Student Survey results began. The OU’s offer remains high-quality and good value for money and, in direct contrast to some parts of the HE sector, we have kept classification of degree rates consistent and do not suffer from ‘grade inflation’.

34.As part of our internal quality monitoring processes we run an annual Student Experience on a Module (SEaM) survey. In this survey we ask students if they thought their module had been good value for money. In the 2016/17 survey, more than two thirds (67.8%) of our undergraduates said it had been.

35. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a set to be a valuable tool. With further development so that it works well for all modes of study and all types of

                                                            19 HESA. “Low participation areas” are defined as POLAR3 Q1 20 A three-step evaluation tool for outreach to adults from disadvantaged backgrounds 

VAL0019  

  

student, it has the potential to help all types of prospective students to make more informed choices.

36. An outdated view that seems to persist, even in relation to the TEF, is that a high quality degree should set a person up for life (i.e. should have lifelong currency or value). Indeed the foreword of the White Paper that introduced the TEF21 suggested that the skills provided by a great higher education “last a lifetime”. In the context multiple careers over longer and longer working lives, we consider ‘a degree for life’ is an outdated concept, certainly in terms of knowledge. As acknowledged in the Industrial Strategy Green Paper, faster and faster changes in technology mean that opportunities for the workforce to upskill and reskill will be of great value to the future economies.

37. New graduates today could well have 50 years’ work ahead of them. A degree gained at 21 may not have much currency 10, 20 or 30 years down the line. As the Taylor Review recommends: It is vital to individuals and the health of our economy that everyone feels they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and that they can, from the beginning to the end of their working life, record and enhance the capabilities developed in formal and informal learning and in on the job and off the job activities.22

38. If barriers to study can be tackled, ‘earn and learn’ students will value the opportunity to top-up their higher education or switch directions during their working life. A good HE system should make this easy and affordable.

The role of the Office for Students 39.The Office for Students will have a critical role in ensuring that students of all

ages, backgrounds and levels of previous qualifications receive VFM from their higher education, whatever their preferred mode of study (full-time/earn-and-learn/distance/blended).

40. In terms of enhancing student choice, the OfS role in making it easy for them to transfer their learning credit from one course to another or one institution to another is important, as is the OfS role in overseeing validation. In the context of validation, for a student to be sure that the currency of their award is equivalent in value to that of any other provider there must be a quality assurance process which treats all providers on an equal footing. It is also imperative that providers not meeting required standards are held to account and have degree awarding powers withdrawn if necessary.

41. In the interests of the student experience, we also propose that:

                                                            21 Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, May 2016. 22 Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, July 2017  

VAL0019  

  

Categories of transparency data that institutions are obliged to publish, in line with the Higher Education & Research Act 2017, should be broadened to cover more characteristics, including age.

The OfS board should include representatives of providers who offer flexible forms of learning. It should be set up to focus on all types of students (current and future). Without this framework from the outset, policy and regulation will continue to only centre on full-time, young students.

OfS regulatory powers should serve to widen and not constrain student choice in terms of learning options (face-to-face, blended, accelerated, online, etc).

VAL0019  

  

About The Open University

The OU is the only UK-wide university, operating across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as internationally. Since we were established in 1969, over two million people have achieved their learning goals by studying with us. Currently, the OU has over 174,000 students. The median age of new OU undergraduates is 28 (2015/16).

The OU mission is to be open to people, places, methods and ideas. Being open to people means we have an open access policy and, for most of our courses, accept students who do not have A Levels or equivalent qualifications. This open admissions policy helps thousands of people who did not achieve their potential earlier in life to ‘go as far as their talents will take them’. Of the OU students who declare their previous qualifications, 33% have only one A level or a lower qualification when they join us (a further 2% have no formal qualifications).

Through its flexible, distance learning model, the OU has a long pedigree of support for students who want to ‘earn while they learn’. Three out of four of our students work full or part-time during their studies. 88% of FTSE 100 companies have sponsored staff on OU courses.

Of all universities in the UK, the OU makes by far the largest contribution to social mobility:

o Almost 1 in 10 of all English first year undergraduate students from low participation areas in 2015/16 are studying at the OU.23

o 55% of English OU students come from disadvantaged backgrounds: either living in a low participation area (20%), with a disability (18%) or with less than the minimum entry requirements for attending a traditional university (34%). The equivalent figure for English full-time students is 29%.24

While most people think that the OU only serves mature students, it also makes a huge contribution to social mobility of young people. Indeed, the OU ranks 16th out of 130 English HE institutions in terms of the number of young undergraduate entrants from low participation areas.25

The OU is the primary provider of HE in UK prisons and secure units. In the last academic year approximately 1,300 students in prisons and

                                                            23 HESA. 9.0 per cent of all POLAR3 Q1 English first year undergraduate students are at the OU 24 “Low participation area” = POLAR3 Q1. “Disability” is based on self-declared data. “Less than the minimum entry requirements for attending a traditional university” = less than 2 A-levels at grade E or above. The individual figures sum to more than 55% as many students have a combination of these characteristics 25 HESA UKPIs. “Entrants from low participation areas” are defined as those living in POLAR3 Q1 

VAL0019  

  

secure units across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland studied with us. Across all security categories, there are OU students in approximately 150 prisons in the UK and Ireland.

The OU has 24,000 students with declared disabilities – more than the total student population of many universities.

October 2017

VAL0042

Written Evidence submitted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 1. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is pleased to

have the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into value for money in higher education.

About QAA 2. QAA is the UK's independent, expert, higher education quality assurance

agency, a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. QAA safeguards standards, and drives quality assurance and enhancement (systematic improvement) for all providers of higher education. Students play a key role in its governance and are involved in all of its activities.

3. Since its foundation in 1997, QAA has conducted over 4,500 quality and standards reviews, adapting, innovating and evolving methods to meet the changing needs of an increasingly diverse sector; governments; students; professional, regulatory and statutory bodies; and employers. QAA works with over 600 higher education providers including universities, colleges and alternative (independent) providers. International regulators look to QAA as the guarantor of the quality of UK higher education.

Executive summary

I. Analysis of QAA reviews shows a strategic commitment by providers to (and investment in) students’ employability. A number of case studies are provided in this submission

II. QAA is working with an external advisory group to update 2012 guidance on enterprise and entrepreneurship which has helped to raise the profile of this subject in higher education, and has also been influential with policy makers in the UK and internationally

III. Assuring the quality of higher and degree apprenticeships is essential to ensure they are a valued career route. Sector organisations including QAA are working together to develop the quality framework for higher and degree apprenticeships

IV. The Access to HE qualification has real impact in widening participation and can transform lives. As the regulatory landscape continues to shift, QAA believes the Access qualification must be safeguarded and properly funded for the future

V. Student submissions to QAA reviews show that overarching issues have more recently become value for money and inconsistencies in the student experience

VAL0042

VI. Between 2013-16, QAA’s Higher Education Review identified over 560 features of good practice in relation to learning and teaching

VII. The UK Quality Code is a core reference point for quality and standards, and remains vital to ensuring the coherence of the UK higher education brand, and supporting a world-class sector which adds significant value to the UK economy and society

VIII. In relation to current debates around degree grade inflation, there are two elements to assess: how much is legitimate student improvement and how much is driven by illegitimate grade inflation. Work is underway by Universities UK, GuildHE, QAA and other sector partners on this.

IX. In 2015-16, there were 701,010 UK transnational education (TNE) students studying offshore for UK awards. It is important that consideration is given to how TNE is assured in the future in a way that maintains the confidence and trust of international governments and regulators, and safeguards the interests of UK TNE students.

X. Students should have a central role in the governance of the Office for Students, and should continue to be involved and empowered in shaping their own learning experiences.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data Employability 4. Employers are important partners for higher education research and

development, workforce and continuing professional development, and as providers of student placements, work experience opportunities, and higher and degree apprenticeships.

5. QAA has found that providers generally work well with employers. Analysis of QAA reviews shows that providers have made strategic commitments to (and investment in) students’ employability. Over 260 examples of good practice were identified through QAA’s reviews in 2015-16 (Higher Education Reviews in England, Northern Ireland and Wales), of which around a third related to developing students’ employability and employer relationships. In the context of higher education provided in further education colleges, particular value can be achieved in close local working with students, and strong local employer links and collaborations. QAA publishes a series of good practice case studies on topics including employability. Examples from a range of providers are provided below.

6. Case study - Furness College: Furness College received a commendation in

its QAA review in February 2016, for the enhancement of student learning opportunities. The college has helped to shape its local economy through strategic engagement with local stakeholders. It has a partnership arrangement with BAE Systems, a global defence and aerospace company. The college’s business and employer support team handles its work with BAE, including apprenticeships, higher education and commercial business. A member of college staff spends time on site at BAE, whilst a BAE

VAL0042

manager is permanently based at the college. This demonstrates the value each organisation places on their relationship and the importance of supporting students’ learning. The college has also developed an economic growth plan in partnership with employers and the local council.

7. Case study – Royal School of Needlework: The School received a

commendation for the quality of its student learning opportunities in its QAA review in June 2016. QAA noted ‘the extensive involvement of employers and students in programme design and development.’ The School is a specialist provider with an international reputation for excellence in hand embroidery. Students develop their creative practice through a unit-based curriculum, engaging with leading-edge practitioners, and working on live projects and schedules. The School’s Studio is a commercial space creating private commissioned works for external clients at an international level. Second-year degree students study on projects with external collaborators. Clients are involved in the evaluation and feedback process, and a number of them have offered students and graduates internships or employment.

8. QAA’s Enhancement-led Institutional Review process in Scotland has also identified good examples of universities and employers working together. A QAA report on reviews undertaken between 2013-16 considered employability and graduate attributes, highlighting examples such as employer involvement in curriculum development and how providers ensure students gain work-related experience. A case study is provided below.

9. Case study - Robert Gordon University: QAA’s review in April 2016 found

that the university had a network of established relationships with employers and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs). These links complement the curriculum, are recognised and valued by staff and students, and form the basis of diverse opportunities for work-related experience. Of note is the university's Talent Exchange initiative, which aims to widen work-related experience opportunities by connecting local business and organisations, specifically small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with students and staff.

Enterprise and entrepreneurship 10. In 2012, QAA published guidance on enterprise and entrepreneurship which

has helped to raise the profile of this subject in higher education, and has also been influential with policy makers in the UK and internationally, including use by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and by the European Commission in a mapping exercise to develop an entrepreneurship competency framework (EntreComp).

11. Case study – University of Sheffield: QAA’s 2012 guidance on enterprise and entrepreneurship helped the university to develop a strategy for enterprise education and embed enterprise across the curriculum. The aim of the university’s Enterprise Education Strategy was for every student to have the opportunity to develop enterprise capabilities within their course. The university created an Enterprise Academy, the first model of its kind in

VAL0042

the UK. It provides curriculum development support for academic colleagues, training and development, events and funding opportunities. The Academy has had real impact: in 2015-16, it supported 172 academic colleagues, leading to 46 instances of curriculum development across the institution, impacting on at least 1500 new students.

12. In October 2016, the Co-Chairs of the Council for Science & Technology wrote to the Prime Minister with recommendations to strengthen entrepreneurship education to boost growth, jobs and productivity. In her response, the Prime Minister suggested a review to measure the impact of QAA’s guidance, on which an updated version could be built. QAA is taking this forward, working with an external advisory group chaired by Professor Andrew Penaluna, Professor of Creative Entrepreneurship at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. In workshops to date, providers have told QAA that they use the guidance to shape their curricula, design and validate programmes in this area, and secure strategic and management buy-in for enterprise and entrepreneurship initiatives. The updated guidance will be launched in January 2018.

VAL0042

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students Higher and degree apprenticeships 13. QAA is committed to assuring the quality of higher and degree

apprenticeships, to ensure they are a valued career route. QAA is working with sector partners to develop the quality framework for higher and degree apprenticeships, and is a member of the Institute for Apprenticeship’s Quality Alliance. This has included contributing to the Department for Education’s Apprenticeships Accountability Statement (published April 2017) and producing QAA’s sector guidance in May 2017, Quality Assuring Higher Education in Apprenticeships: current approaches. QAA has also provided input to the Institute’s draft quality statement, on which it recently held a consultation. The statement is intended to define what an apprenticeship is, what a high-quality apprenticeship looks like and how that should be judged.

Access to HE qualification 14. QAA is proud to manage the scheme for the recognition and quality

assurance of Access to HE courses in England and Wales. The Access to HE Diploma is a qualification which prepares people without traditional qualifications for study at university and can transform lives: it delivers real impact and value.

15. Case study - Nneka Akudolu, Barrister: “I was in a waitressing job, working anti-social hours for very little money. I had to step back and look at my options, but with four GCSEs to my name, I felt I didn't really have many! I just wanted to get a degree and see where that took me. I saw an advert for an Access to HE course taught at Tower Hamlets College. At the beginning of the course, I found it daunting to get back into studying and doing homework after being out of education for so long, but that soon passed. The tutors were incredibly helpful and motivating, and the students supported and encouraged each other. But the real highlight for me was when I received an offer of a place at Cardiff University. I definitely couldn't have taken a degree without first completing the Access to HE course. I had bags of confidence after completing the course. I now have a good job, which will hopefully enable me to be financially stable in the future. My earning capacity has increased enormously.”

16. QAA worked with UCAS and sector representatives to secure the inclusion of the Access to HE Diploma in the UCAS tariff, for the September 2017 student intake onwards. This has strengthened and positioned the Diploma within the mainstream and admissions offices, and provided higher education with a clear statement of where it sits in relation to other qualifications. The Access to HE key statistics (2015-16) underline the continued positive impact of this qualification in widening participation in higher education:

VAL0042

23,660 Access to HE Diploma students entered higher education in England and Wales, of which: o 87% were over 21 years old o 23% from low participation areas o 31% from ethnic minority backgrounds o 17% had a disability or learning difficulty

17. Historically, QAA has managed the Access recognition scheme through

contributions from the funding bodies in England and Wales, higher education subscribers and fees from the agencies which validate the qualification (AVAs). Since 2015-16, funding has been significantly squeezed by a reduction in funding body contributions. QAA welcomed recognition of the Diploma’s contribution by Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities, Science, Research & Innovation in his 2017-18 grant letter (February 2017) to the English funding body, which secured funding for QAA’s work this year: ‘The QAA-regulated “Access to Higher Education” Diploma makes a valuable contribution to widening participation in higher education. While the arrangements for quality assurance are changing within the sector, we would like you to support this valuable scheme to ensure the Diploma is regulated for 2017/18. Given the changes in the higher education regulatory framework that will result from the Higher Education and Research Bill… and the potential importance of the Diploma in taking forward our widening participation objectives, we wish to consider how best the QAA could optimise the take-up of the Diploma, including future activity and funding levels, to most effectively assist in the achievement of our social mobility goals.’

18. As the regulatory landscape continues to shift, QAA believes that this important qualification must be safeguarded and properly funded for the future.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching Teaching quality: outcomes from QAA reviews 19. QAA introduced student written submissions to its review methods in 2002.

This was a pioneering initiative and, today, student engagement in quality assurance and students as partners in their education is the norm in universities. QAA’s 2017 analysis of these submissions, Taking the Long View of the Student Voice, found that students have remained concerned about contact time, assessment and the need for timely feedback. Teaching quality was a minority concern in earlier submissions but, following the 2011 higher education reforms, QAA has seen changes in their focus. Overarching issues have become value for money and inconsistencies in the student experience. Students tend to have a greater awareness of differences between subjects in the levels of contact with staff and the provision of resources. They are also more concerned about hidden costs and the accuracy of published information. These findings

VAL0042

concur with 2013 research commissioned by QAA with King’s College London into student expectations and perceptions of their education.

20. QAA’s Higher Education Review ran in England, Northern Ireland and Wales

for three years from 2013-2016, for universities and further education colleges providing higher education. Overall, over 560 features of good practice were identified in relation to learning and teaching. QAA found that universities performed consistently well: 97% of those reviewed between 2013-16 received satisfactory judgements and around a third received one or more commendations. QAA reviews of further education colleges found a wider range of performance, with around 30% receiving one or more unsatisfactory judgements, and 13% receiving commended judgements. The quality of learning and teaching was therefore more mixed: some colleges offered an outstanding student experience, while others had weaker academic practice. QAA's work with colleges providing higher education has focused on guidance and enhancement activities to improve performance.

21. QAA also conducted reviews of 38 alternative providers in 2015-16 (Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers)), with four providers receiving commendations – two for the quality of student learning opportunities. A case study is provided below.

22. Case study – London School of Business & Management: The School

provides extensive support for the continuing professional development of its staff. All academic staff are supported to become Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Higher Education Academy. The School’s teaching, learning and assessment strategy includes a confidential peer teaching observation scheme, aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework for higher education. Good practice is shared through the School’s Teaching and Learning Forum, and its annual Teaching and Learning Conference.

23. QAA has commissioned additional external research on the outcomes of

Higher Education Review, which will be published by the end of 2017. Initial findings show that there has been considerable investment by providers in training and developing staff, to support and develop student achievement. The findings also show a range of professional development opportunities available to staff and staff in partner organisations, and support for disseminating good practice to improve learning and teaching.

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) 24. QAA has contributed to the Teaching Excellence Framework’s development

and implementation, including working closely with HEFCE to manage the assessment process for 299 providers in TEF Year 2 (2016-17).

25. QAA continues to contribute to the further development of the TEF and

hopes to play a role in future assessments. In order to take account of the full range of diverse and innovative approaches to teaching across the sector, the TEF should be considered alongside other methods for assessing teaching quality to avoid duplication. As a desk-based process, it does not include direct engagement with providers and their students which can add another dimension to assessment. Also, with its particular focus on

VAL0042

teaching, the TEF cannot look at other quality-related aspects of the student experience, such as selection and admission, student complaints, or the quality of provision delivered with other organisations.

Academic standards 26. There has been an increased public focus on standards in higher education

in recent months. The UK Quality Code for Higher Education gives all higher education providers a shared starting point for setting, describing and assuring the academic standards of their higher education awards and programmes, and the quality of the learning opportunities they provide. The UK also aligns with the expectations of the European Higher Education Area, to ensure the wider recognition of UK awards and qualifications, and to enable staff and student mobility.

27. QAA is responsible for the design, management and development of the Quality Code on behalf of the sector, working with the UK-wide Standing Committee for Quality Assessment. QAA and the Committee are currently undertaking a consultation on bold proposals for reform of the Quality Code, to ensure it remains agile and responsive in the context of ongoing regulatory change.

28. As higher education is a devolved matter, there is increasing divergence of policy across the UK. The Quality Code is vital in ensuring the coherence of the UK higher education brand and supporting a world-class sector which adds significant value to the UK economy and society.

29. There are no longer regular external reviews of standards for universities

and colleges in England and Northern Ireland, following changes to quality assessment introduced from 2016 by their funding bodies. Under the provisions of the Higher Education & Research Act 2017, a designated independent quality body would have responsibility for assessing the quality of, and the standards applied to, higher education in England. It is the view of QAA that the new regulatory framework being introduced should include capacity for the designated quality body to investigate issues or concerns raised in this area, to ensure public confidence in standards is maintained. Confidence can also be maintained through capacity for random and thematic reviews by the designated quality body, as part of a new risk-based approach.

30. In relation to current debates around degree grade inflation, there are two elements to assess: how much is legitimate student improvement and how much is driven by illegitimate grade inflation. QAA is working with Universities UK and other sector partners on this, with a project underway to develop strengthened benchmarks for degree classifications, analysis of trends and drivers of grade inflation, and a review of the tools and practices for managing standards.

UK transnational education 31. QAA is responsible for assuring transnational education (TNE) – higher

education delivered overseas – for the UK sector, underpinning its world-

VAL0042

class reputation. In 2015-16, there were 701,010 UK TNE (offshore) students, of which 74,965 were studying within the EU and 626,045 outside the EU [source: HESA]. Over 80% of UK universities are engaged in some form of TNE, either through distance learning, partnerships or branch campus arrangements. Significantly, this provision is being delivered across all continents (bar Antarctica). TNE now represents the main area of growth in UK higher education in terms of student numbers. The latest HESA data show that, whilst the total number of students studying on higher education programmes in the UK has declined by approximately 8.8% over the past five years, the number of students studying for UK TNE awards has risen by 39% over the same period. TNE student numbers now exceed the number of international students in the UK by around 60%.

32. QAA has undertaken TNE reviews in countries including China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, and operates 15 formal strategic relationships with quality bodies overseas to provide confidence in UK TNE provision. QAA is currently running a three year programme of TNE reviews, covering Ireland (2017), Hong Kong (2018) and Malaysia (2019). However, with resources and funding to allow for only one country review per year, the present system may in future come under pressure. It will be important to ensure that TNE students continue to be included in the system as a matter of course, and consideration given to how TNE is assured in the future to maintain the confidence and trust of international governments and regulators, and safeguard the interests of UK TNE students.

The role of the Office for Students 33. The Higher Education & Research Act 2017 will bring a new framework into

place for English higher education. QAA welcomes the planned designation of an independent quality body under the provisions of the Act. QAA has submitted an expression of interest to be that body, and would work in partnership with the Office for Students (OfS) to design and deliver an efficient, proportionate, risk-based approach to quality assessment, addressing issues and weaknesses in the management of academic quality and standards as they arise, and safeguarding the interests of students.

34. Whilst not a feature of the new regulatory framework for England, quality

enhancement is a key feature of the arrangements for Scotland and Wales. QAA will continue to offer enhancement-focussed services on a voluntary basis for English providers at both an institutional and a system-wide level.

35. Under the Act, the Office for Students has a specific duty to ‘promote quality, and greater choice and opportunities for students, in the provision of higher education by English higher education providers.’ QAA believes that students should have a central role in the governance of the Office for Students and welcomes the recent announcement of a student panel to inform the Office’s decision-making. QAA has two student members of its own Board and a Student Advisory Committee.

VAL0042

36. QAA is committed to ensuring students continue to be involved and

empowered in shaping their own learning experiences. Student engagement was covered as a specific chapter (Chapter B5) in the Quality Code and, as part of the current consultation on a reformed Code, is proposed as a topic within a new range of supplementary guidance. Under the Act, the designated quality body will have responsibility for assessing academic quality of institutions under general guidance from the Office for Students and sole responsibility for assessing academic standards. If designated, QAA would continue to focus both on value for money for students in its work and student involvement in its assessment processes.

October 2017

VAL0026

Written Evidence Submitted by the Royal Historical

Society

Executive Summary

I.2 We welcome the Committee’s inquiry into value for money in Higher

Education, but regret that its scope is not broader.

II.2 We are skeptical that Destination Data will actually provide much

meaningful information to assist prospective students choose universities

and subjects.

III.1-2 It is clear to us that TEF has both demonstrable strengths and

limitations.

III.4-6 the planned emphasis on ‘teaching intensity’ in TEF misses a

fundamental point by conflating teaching with learning.

V.1-4 we are fully committed to Social Justice in HE and we are advancing

its agenda.

VI.1 We hope the OfS will promote the interests of students within the

broader context of the interests of HEIs.

I. The Royal Historical Society: a brief introduction

1.1 The Royal Historical Society, founded in 1868, strives to promote excellence

in the discipline of History. It has over 4000 members drawn from higher

education institutions (HEIs), secondary education, and the heritage sector,

archives, museums, and libraries, mostly in the UK but also across the

globe. It sponsors historical publications, provides financial support for

postgraduates and early career researchers, and awards prizes for

outstanding books, essays, student dissertations, public history writing and

inspirational teaching.

1.2 The Society also engages in public policy debates and developments, with

standing Committees for both Research Policy and Educational Policy. The

VAL0026 latter works closely with History (HE) UK and the Historical Association, with

a particular interest in ‘A’ Level history and the transition to university as

well as curriculum design and learning for undergraduates and

postgraduates. In short, advancing teaching and learning is a high priority

for the Society.

2.1 We welcome the Committee’s inquiry into value for money in Higher

Education, but regret that its scope is not broader. In its current form, the

inquiry fails to capture the full range of contributions to economy and

society made by UK universities, and by History as a university-based

discipline. Research intensive universities play a major role in the national

economy, and all universities have a demonstrated beneficial impact locally

as employers, hubs for enterprise and collaborators with external partners

such as museums and partnership schools.

2.2 This is all the more so now that impact and public engagement by HEIs has

become prioritised by the REF (Research Excellence Framework). In 2011-

12 the HE sector generated over £73 billion of output, and contributed 2.8%

of UK GPD, up from 2.3% in 2007 (http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-

and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/the-economic-impact-of-

universities.pdf). Many universities attract large numbers of foreign

students which, among much else, create networks with implications for

future global connections, whether commercial, cultural or political.

2.3 As for History graduates, a recent report demonstrated that a ‘truly

remarkable number of history graduates have gone on to become the

movers-and-shakers of modern-day Britain’. It listed ‘famous history

graduates’, among them leaders in media, law, politics, civil service, trade

unions and a significant number of VCs (D. Nicholls, The Employment of

History Graduates, 2011). Any comprehensive, robust assessment will

necessarily include these factors in its calculation of value for money.

3.1 It is likewise essential that the inquiry takes proper cognizance of the range

of universities and other providers that make up the HEI sector and sidestep

the dangers of treating the sector as an homogenous whole. An especial

VAL0026 strength of the UK HE sector is its diversity: institutions have different

strengths, attract diverse constituencies, and are embedded in (and

contribute to) specific regional economies.

3.2 Our own discipline is present across the full range of UK HEIs and Mission

Groups, as evidenced in REF2014 in the submission of over 80 Units of

Assessment to the History sub-panel.

4.1 It is certainly disappointing that only 35% of respondents to this year’s HE

Policy Unit and HEA student experience believed their HE experience was

‘good’ or ‘very good’ value for money. Against this, it is worth noting that

73 HEIs in this year’s NSS received 85% or above for ‘overall satisfaction’

with their course. This suggests a complexity about student attitudes which

merits investigation.

4.2 We underline in particular the need for the Committee to distinguish

carefully in its assessment between on the one hand an actual absence of

value for money in the HE sector, and, on the other, a perceived absence

and/or failure to recognize/articulate the presence of value for money. As

noted above, substantial data testify to the value added to economy and

society by HE activity, including the Humanities.

4.3 The Committee should be mindful of the limits of the data with which it

measures value in this context. Compared, moreover, to recent surveys of

public satisfaction with for example Parliament (38% in 2017), the NHS

overall (63% in 2016), and GP services (72% in 2016), the NSS scores

appear to register very significant levels of satisfaction at many UK HEIs.

(https://secondreading.uk /elections/the-public-and-parliament-more-

engaged-less-satisfied/;

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/public-satisfaction-nhs-2016.)

II. Graduate Outcomes and the use of destination data

1.1 The recent change in name of TEF (from Teaching Excellent Framework to

VAL0026 Teaching Excellence Framework and Student Outcomes) underlines the

increasing importance of destination data in the evolving assessment of

value. The data drawn from DLHE and LEO can certainly assist policy

makers pursuing equality and social justice.

1.2 Graduate employment rates are lower among black and minority ethnic

groups, as well as those known to have a disability (Destinations of Leavers

from Higher Education Longitudinal survey 2016-17, 2.5 years on); the

gender pay gap that opens up from first employment persists thereafter.

These glaring inequalities demand policy-makers’ attention.

2. But TEF itself seeks to assist prospective students’ choice of universities

and subjects by using DLHE as a core metric from TEF2 onwards, and LEO

as a supplementary metric from TEF3 onwards. We are sceptical that this

will provide much meaningful information for prospective students for four

reasons:

Based on extensive experience of university open days and dialogue with

prospective Humanities students and their parents/carers, we do not

believe that these data will be comprehended and used in the way intended

by TEF’s champions. Prospective applicants and their advisors are already

overwhelmed with available information, which they process imperfectly.

Adding to this information without simplifying its presentation risks

confusing rather than enlightening student choice.

While it is clear that a graduate premium remains, notwithstanding the

expansion of student numbers, other research suggests that once controls

are applied for factors such as prior attainment, background, and region,

there is little difference between subjects, except at the extremes (at one

end, medicine, veterinary science and law, and the creative arts at the

other).

Other evidence points to employers’ broad indifference to prospective

employees’ degree subject, although they do pay more attention to the

university at which degrees were obtained. This may mean that they are

VAL0026 using a university as a proxy for other characteristics, such as background

and prior attainment. Given the Committee’s concern for issues of social

justice, including widening participation, this latter point merits especially

careful scrutiny.

There is evidence of sustained demand for analytical and managerial skills

which are delivered by HEIs, regardless of degree subject. This helps to

account for the persistence of the graduate premium. In light of this

evidence, we remain unconvinced that the destination data will actually

deliver the guidance that is intended. (P. Mandler, ‘Educating the Nation,

IV. Subject Choice’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 27 (2017),

pp. 24-6; Y. Liu and D. B. Grusky, ‘The Payoff to Skill in the Third Industrial

Revolution’, American Journal of Sociology, 118 (2013), 1330–74.)

3. There are other hazards in deploying this data in TEF. Many universities

have sizeable numbers of overseas students, who are not included in TEF’s

metrics, making the data on graduate outcomes for some institutions

incomplete and indeed misleading. Moreover, LEO as presently constituted

has limited reach, covering graduate cohorts from 2003-4 to 2012-13. It

would be more useful and more revealing to consider destination data over

several decades, and establish whether a graduate degree does indeed

confer flexibility and changes in career, in other words ‘graduate lifelong

learning’, in a changing labour market.

4. We also believe that linking university degrees to earning power needs to

be balanced by acknowledging the other benefits of a university education:

the pursuit of curiosity and intellectual interest for its own sake, greater

health and happiness; and for those who study History, the acquisition of

humane and ethical qualities, giving its graduates an understanding of

current events and the modern world, an insight into other cultures and

different viewpoints and therefore the capacity to play an informed part in

society. The public utility of these skills and values is evidenced, with

specific respect to History degrees, in the 2011 study by Nicholls, cited

above.

VAL0026

III. The quality and effectiveness of teaching

1.1 TEF is intended to be ‘essential to driving up standards of teaching’ (Jo

Johnson, 24 February 2017). While TEF is still evolving, it is clear to us

that it has both demonstrable strengths and limitations. A welcome

consequence of TEF 2 has been that HEIs have prioritized the teaching and

student outcomes agenda, and new revenue streams have been directed

towards tackling a whole raft of issues, such as retention, employability,

attainment and widening participation.

1.2 A reading of providers’ submissions and the comments of the TEF panel also

suggests that HEIs which demonstrated genuine engagement with

students, and enhancement of teaching and learning, often received gold

or silver awards. We applaud the importance of the TEF panel in offering

an important element of peer-review, to counter-balance an over-reliance

on metrics.

1.3 It is vital to note that academic confidence in the REF derives very

significantly from its predominant reliance on peer-review. If TEF is to

command the confidence of participating institutions—and to attract wider

institutional participation from the sector—then peer-review will need to be

maintained, and perhaps enhanced, as integral to the process.

2. We also accept the logic of moving towards subject-level submissions,

planned for TEF 5, since it fits with most of the objectives driving TEF:

choice, raising esteem for teaching, and recognising and rewarding

excellence in teaching. It is however essential that the fit between ‘subject’

and ‘course’ is satisfactorily addressed so that prospective applicants can

make meaningful use of this data. Moreover, we are concerned about the

planned incorporation of two new supplementary metrics for TEF 5: LEO,

for the reasons expressed above, and ‘teaching intensity’ with its focus on

contact hours and class size.

3. With regard to ‘teaching intensity’, there is certainly some significant

VAL0026 variation in contact hours which individual HEIs will need to register, and

the case for quality (as much as the quantity) of contact time needs to be

articulated clearly for the benefit of prospective students. Absent from

‘teaching intensity’, however, is attention to many key teaching resources

that enrich (or, in their absence, can impoverish) learning. In History, these

include access to manuscript resources, museum collections, online

databases of primary and secondary sources, libraries and collaborative

learning opportunities with local and national charities, heritage

organisations, etc. Active engagement with resources such as these

sharpens students’ transferable analytical skills and can be pivotal in their

subsequent graduate employment.

4. More broadly, the planned emphasis on ‘teaching intensity’ misses a

fundamental point by conflating teaching with learning. Learning is the

ultimate objective for students (and presumably for their prospective

employees), and is what is assessed for their degree classification. As is

clearly reflected in the History subject benchmark, university study of

History is not designed to fill our students with knowledge so much as to

inform, direct and inspire them to become active, effective and independent

learners and critical assessors of evidence.

4.1 History graduates should be capable, indeed, of creating their own

knowledge. History confers many invaluable graduate attributes and

transferable skills, such as critical thinking, close reading and careful

attention to the subtleties of language, powers of advocacy on paper or in

person, and ‘learning how to learn’ (D. Nicholls, The employability of

History students, 2005).

5. Learning such skills occurs through contact hours, certainly, but also

through independent or collaborative work outside seminars or tutorials, in

reading, reflection and preparation of written or oral work. In so doing,

students also turn to subject librarians, pastoral and learning support

services. Learning is a complex product of the interplay of academic hours

and types of tuition, size of classes, library and cognate resources, the

learning culture and sense of academic community, and, of course, the

VAL0026 research expertise of the teacher. Many of these processes cannot be

satisfactorily captured by a metric on teaching intensity.

6. Importantly, the type of learning outlined above, characteristic of excellent

History and wider Humanities learning, is genuinely challenging for

students. Its level of difficulty—relative to History in schools, which places

significantly fewer demands on independent learning and critical analysis—

is entirely appropriate for university-level study and its value in the

workplace is reflected in the graduate premium. The NSS results must be

read in this context.

6.1 Policy-makers may wish to weigh students’ short-term perceptions against

their long-term outcomes. More broadly, we would welcome further

research into ‘learning gains’ which has the potential via TEF to address

institutional or subject-level ‘value added’ for students, and thus to offer a

much more valuable yardstick than ‘teaching intensity’.

7. Cross-national UK comparison of HE policy raises the question of whether

TEF is in fact the most effective available vehicle for driving up teaching

standards and ensuring value of money. Scottish HEIs use an annual

internal audit each year, which addresses quality assurance and

enhancement, the results of which are submitted to Scottish Funding

Council. It uses the external assessors, empowers the student voice, and

allows a dialogue between reviewers, staff and students over methods of

teaching and the best use of resources for the benefit of students. Our

consultations with Scottish RHS Fellows suggests that this system

commands wide respect in the sector. Such an alternative model

addresses teaching and learning directly, and largely avoids the proxy

metrics central to TEF2.

IV. Senior management pay in universities

VAL0026 1. The levels of senior management remuneration and their potential links to

value for money are beyond the remit of the Society’s Education Policy

Committee.

V. Social justice in HE and support for disadvantaged students

1. The Society is fully committed to this agenda. A beneficial by-product of

the introduction of £9000 fees in 2012 was the access agreement by

universities to widen participation, and the split metrics in TEF2 looked at

variations in core metrics by gender, disability ethnicity and age, among

others, with the aim of encouraging ‘providers’ to identity and address

these inequities among students. This is part of a much broad agenda for

social justice in HE, which needs concerted action from policy-makers, HEIs

and disciplinary bodies such as the Society.

2. History at university has conventionally had relatively little appeal for white

working class males and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students.

Explanatory factors for the latter failure include the Eurocentric curriculum

in many HEIs, the attainment gap in degree outcomes, and a longstanding

preference for vocational subjects, a subject choice which overlooks the

invaluable transferable skills that a Humanities subjects inculcate.

2.1 The Society is playing its own part in addressing the severe under-

representation of BAME historians (both students and staff) in HEIs, by

setting up a race equality working group (May 2017). This working group

will seek to provide university departments and other institutions involved

in historical research and dissemination with robust data on the current

state of the discipline with regard to race and ethnicity and to create a

platform for effecting meaningful change. The working group plans to

publish a report on race equality in the discipline of History in UK HE in

October 2018.

3. Gender equality is also a high priority for the HE sector. Our report Gender

Equality and Historians in Higher Education (2015) has become an

VAL0026 invaluable reference-point for history departments in the UK which are

reviewing their policies and procedures, and we plan that the guide be

revised and reissued in 2018. In it we touch upon student inequality,

inviting colleagues to investigate whether more men than women obtain

firsts or distinctions, and to reflect on their teaching practices in the light

of invisible bias and stereotype threat. As increasing numbers of university

historians apply for Athena SWAN certification, these gender disparities will

(rightly) come under increasing scrutiny in our discipline.

4. We draw attention, too, to the calamitous decline in adult and part-time

higher education opportunities. Over the last decade, numbers of part-

time students have halved as a percentage of the student cohort and

dropped by more than half in numerical terms

(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/participation-rates-in-higher-

education-2006-to-2016). This is a consequence of universities folding

part-time provision into full-time courses as well as changes to funding

regime.

4.1 The result is a serious threat to opportunities for ‘lifelong learning’ and the

chances of retooling in a flexible labour market. In particular, current HE

policy and funding makes re-entering education for those with full-time

jobs or caring responsibilities all the more difficult. Given the predicted

expansion of the workforce as people’s working lives expand, this decline

in provision needs addressing and ways sought to reverse this trend.

VI. The role of the Office of Students

1. We endorse the Higher Education Commission’s challenge to the OfS to act

as an engine of social mobility, and back Sir Michael Barber’s affirmation

that ‘the autonomy of institutions and academic freedom are fundamental

building blocks for a successful sector’ (26 June 2017). However, the

promise of both Sir Michael and Nicola Dandridge to provide ‘an unflinching

focus on the student’ carries with it some dangers. Over the medium- and

long-term, student interests are best advanced by acknowledging the

VAL0026 needs and aspirations of the broader academic communities in which they

study. This environment includes academic staff and fellow-students

working as teachers, whose research-based or -led teaching is central to

the curriculum and culture of many HEIs. Too narrow a focus on students

will not advance the interests of the institutions in which they learn and

instead will risk damaging the educational experience.

October 2017

VAL0033

  

Written Evidence submitted by the University and College Union

1. The University and College Union (UCU) is the UK’s largest trade union for academic and academic-related staff in higher and further education, representing over 100,000 members working in universities, colleges, training providers, adult education settings and prisons. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the select committee inquiry into value for money in higher education.

2. The higher education sector offers significant economic and social value to individuals, business and the taxpayer. UK universities contributed £21.5bn to UK GDP in 2014-151, and graduates continue to enjoy an employment and earnings premium despite the rise in student numbers.2

3. However, the starting point for the inquiry is clear: England now has the highest public university tuition fees in the industrialised world.3 With the rise in interest rates on loans to 6.1%, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that students in England are going to graduate with average debts of £50,800 and that this figure rises to over £57,000 for students from the poorest backgrounds.4 In addition, the latest report from London Economics shows that graduates face a mid-life tax crisis as many of them will spend their 30s and 40s dealing with effective tax rates of above 50%. 5

4. UCU believes that the current funding model is neither fair nor sustainable. The recent proposal to raise the repayment threshold from £21,000 to £25,000 is a small step in the right direction, but it will not address the unfairness in the current financial support system in which students from the lowest income backgrounds end up borrowing significantly more than their richer counterparts.

5. Politicians of all stripes are now recognising that the complex issue of student funding must be revisited and we welcome the proposal for a ‘major review’. However, it needs to be an independent, wide-ranging review that considers all policy options. UCU believes that the time has come for a key beneficiary of higher education, business, to pay its fair share of the cost. That’s why we have been calling for Business Education Tax to help finance the costs of higher education.6

6. The review of funding also needs to look again at the effectiveness of the quasi-market framework in England. In our view, the current funding and regulatory model has led to several poor outcomes for students, employers and taxpayers.

VAL0033

  

7. The most damaging aspect has been the negative impact on the number of part-time and mature students in higher education and the loss of professional development opportunities for students in work7.

8. Intense competition has also led to increased pressure to spend money on attracting students rather than on front-line delivery (e.g. through capital spending on new buildings and facilities and expensive marketing and recruitment campaigns).8 This is in direct opposition to the educational preferences of students, who would prefer institutions to spend less on buildings and sports facilities and more on investment in teaching.9

9. Finally, extending the loans system to private providers has led to poorer educational outcomes and little evidence of innovation. For example, the National Audit Office10 continues to report higher drop-out rates and ineligible payments at some private providers, while the latest HESA data shows that most private providers offer a limited range of courses mostly focussed in business and administration.11

Graduate outcomes and destination data

10. UCU recognises that potential students should have access to information about graduate outcomes, including labour market data, and we note that graduate tracking is a priority for the European Commission.12

11. However, there are methodological limitations with the UK graduate destinations survey as well as new Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data. Some of these flaws are technical - for example, the inability of LEO data to capture self-employment but the biggest problem is a structural one. Graduate economic outcomes largely reflect the inequalities that already exist in wages and the labour market.

12. Research shows that graduate earnings are closely linked to a prior school attainment, which in turn is heavily influenced by students’ socio-economic backgrounds.13 Graduate labour market outcomes are also heavily affected by gender, ethnicity, subject and the location of the university.

13. In addition, a sole emphasis on graduate earnings fails to recognise the wider external benefits of higher education participation, which include better health, greater civic participation and volunteering. It also fails to account for individual circumstances and motivations – for example, having to take time out of work to care for children or relatives, or choosing to work for a charity for relatively low pay – both of which can bring significant benefit to society but can affect earnings potential.

14. For these reasons, we are opposed to using graduate outcomes data as a measure of the ‘quality of teaching’ (i.e. for the Teaching Excellence Framework). We are concerned that the government is pushing ahead

VAL0033

  

with using LEO data as part of its plans for the TEF and will resist any new proposals to link LEO data to funding.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

15. If the government opts to link LEO data to funding, one of the first casualties will be the widening participation agenda. Even under the current system there has been a growth in financial inequality between and within higher education institutions. For example, those institutions with the strongest records on widening access have tended to do less well under the current fee regime, particularly since the abolition of student number controls.14 Instead, we call on the government to reward institutions which increase participation of students from under-represented groups and also to help these students to succeed.

16. Above all, we need to restate the case for widening participation and social justice at the heart of higher education policy. This will require real action on the part of universities, for example in tackling degree attainment gaps between white and BME students.15 However, it will also require a change in government policy on financial support for disadvantaged students.

17. Maintenance grants are a crucial incentive for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are already daunted by the prospect of cripplingly high tuition fee debt. UCU-commissioned research showed that when young people choose to go to university, those from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to put cost at the forefront of their decision-making, often opting for institutions close to home that offer cheaper study that can be combined with part-time work. The report found that the availability of maintenance grants would have the most impact on non-white young people in encouraging them to apply to university.16

18. Replacing maintenance grants with loans has only increased student and national debt and cost everyone more in the long run. We need an overhaul of the financial support system. Learners should know what support they will get before they begin their courses and that is why we favour a return of maintenance grants rather than relying on institutional bursaries and scholarships.

19. We are also calling for properly funded and consistent additional learning support (ALS) funding to support disabled learners to fully access and participate in both further and higher education. Recent reductions is Disabled Students Allowance and funding for student support workers risk putting off students who are disabled and jeopardises their progress and attainment whilst studying.

VAL0033

  

20. Finally, while support for students at university is crucial, we need to look again at the admissions process. We need a fairer, more transparent system based on actual achievement rather than estimates of potential. Research undertaken for UCU by the UCL Institute of Education found that just 16% of applicants' grades were predicted correctly. It also found socioeconomic differences in predicted grades: 24% of AAB applicants from lower income backgrounds are under-predicted compared to 20% of AAB applicants from the highest income backgrounds.17

21. UCU calls for a ban on the use of unconditional offers based on predicted grades and to explore a move to post-qualification admissions (PQA) which allows students to be selected on the basis of their results rather than predicted grades.

Senior management pay in universities

22. UCU welcomes the increased public focus, including by the select committee, on spiralling senior management pay in universities. UCU research shows that university heads received an average salary package of £277,834 for the academic year 2015/16.

23. Over the past few years UCU has tried to shine a spotlight on this issue but we have encountered resistance from university management. For example, in 2015/16 three-quarters of universities refused to provide unredacted minutes of their remuneration committees meetings when asked by UCU through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

24. Previous research by the union revealed that over two-thirds (71%) of vice-chancellors who responded to union's FOI are either members of the university's remuneration committee or can attend (although the true figure is likely to be higher as some refused to even answer the question). A total of 13 institutions refused to provide any details of the vice-chancellor’s pay and perks in response to the request from the union in 2015/16.18

25. We welcome the recent announcement by the universities’ minister to introduce a new ongoing condition of registration requiring providers to “publish the number of staff paid more than £100,000 per year and to provide a clear justification of the salaries of those paid more than £150,000 per annum.” This is a small step in the right direction, although we believe that a public register of senior management pay and perks is still needed to restore public confidence.

26. The excessive rise in senior management pay has coincided with a bigger employment-related problem: the deterioration in working conditions and salaries for staff at the academic chalk face, particularly people on precarious contracts. We will return to this issue in the next section.

VAL0033

  

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

27. Over the past few years, studies have shown improvement in several areas of teaching and the student experience, including greater engagement of students with the design and delivery of their education.19 The most recent HEA/HEPI survey also points to a clear year-on-year increase in student perceptions on teaching quality.

28. However, there are areas for improvement and many of these relate to the ways in which institutions value their teaching staff. Above all, we believe that if the higher education sector is serious about supporting and valuing high-quality teaching, then academics must be at the centre of the process and governments and universities must address underlying issues such as casualisation, workloads and career progression.

29. UCU believes that the employment model used in universities, which relies extensively on temporary teaching, has a direct impact on quality but this is not addressed by the Teaching Excellence Framework. Despite the best efforts of the many excellent temporary teachers, the current situation is unsustainable. Temporary contract working is endemic across UK higher education, with 69,000 (43%) out of a total of 161,000 contracted academic staff on non-permanent contracts. Among 40,000 teaching only staff, 29,435 (73%) have non-permanent contracts.20 These figures do not include the 75,000 so-called atypical academic staff who are also largely engaged in teaching but who are usually employed only on an “as and when” basis and have little access to career development or other scholarship opportunities.

30. More than two-fifths (42%) of staff on casual contracts, such as controversial zero-hours contracts, in universities and colleges have struggled to pay household bills, according to UCU research.21 Job insecurity also impacts on the quality of the student learning experience, for example, on marking and assessment processes and the opportunities for staff on casual contracts to access professional development. 22 Students and their parents have a right to know if lecturers are secure in their employment, as it can impact on the quality of teaching they can deliver. There is now a large body of research in the United States, compiled over a 20-year period, which shows casualisation has a clear impact on student educational outcomes.23 However, we remain frustrated at the lack of focus on this issue here in the UK.

31. We need to see major improvements to the professional and working lives of the thousands of sessional staff who teach in our universities and colleges. In UCU’s view, casualisation can be tackled by a far greater use of workforce planning and improved contracts. As yet university employers have failed to pick up this challenge.

The role of the Office for Students

VAL0033

  

32. We note the recent publication of the consultation on behalf of the Office for Students (OfS) and will be responding to it in due course. The priorities for UCU include guaranteeing that the governance of the OfS can protect the collective interests of staff and students, ensuring that the ‘public good’ of higher education is valued as much as the requirement to promote ‘competition’ and the importance of maintaining a coherent system of quality assurance and regulation across UK higher education.

33. We have a particular interest in ensuring that the registration process developed by the OfS will require institutions to provide real evidence of their commitment to the principle of academic freedom. Recent research24 shows that UK protections for academic freedom are weaker than those in other EU nations and we are concerned that a greater influx of private, for-profit providers will further reduce protections for academic freedom.

34. In their role as ‘student champion’, we call for the OfS to look at important workforce issues like insecure contracts and student: staff ratios which directly impact upon quality and the student experience, but which the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has had a poor record in either analysing or addressing.

35. UCU has been a strong supporter of the work of Office of Fair Access (OFFA) in encouraging institutions to take widening participation seriously. We will be lobbying to ensure that their good work is not watered down once it is subsumed within the OfS.

1 Universities UK (2017), The economic impact of universities http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/economic-impact-universities-2014-15.aspx 2 Institute for Fiscal Studies (2016), Briefing note: the puzzle of graduate wages https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn185.pdf 3OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017 – UK country note. 4 Institute for Fiscal Studies (2017) Higher Education funding in England: past, present and options for the future. 5 London Economics (2017) The impact of student loan repayments on graduate taxes - Final Report for the University and College Union. 6 UCU (2015) The case for a business education tax: https://www.ucu.org.uk/bet_briefing 7 Callender, C. (2017) http://www.researchcghe.org/blog/2017-07-01-part-time-student-numbers-are-plummeting-heres-why/ 8 Temple, P. and Callender, C. (2015) ‘The changing student experience’, 17 February http://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-changisng-student-experience/ 9 HEA/HEPI (2017) Student academic experience survey, p.48. 10 NAO (2017) Follow-up on alternative higher education providers, October. 11 HESA (2017) Higher education undergraduate student enrolments and qualifications obtained at alternative providers in England 2015/16. 12 https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/graduate-com-2017-249_en.pdf 13 Britton, J. et al (2016) How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background, IfS Working Paper W16/06.

                                                            

VAL0033

  

                                                                                                                                                                                         14 Morgan, J. (2016) ‘Unlimited student recruitment ‘transforms’ English universities’, Times Higher Education, 17 February. 15 Buckley-Irvine, N. (2017) ‘Universities’ shame – unpicking the black attainment gap’, Wonkhe: http://wonkhe.com/blogs/analysis-universities-shame-black-attainment-gap/ 16 NEON (2016) Does cost matter? Students’ understanding of the higher education finance system and how cost affects their decisions. A NEON report supported by UCU. 17 Wyness, G. (2016) Predicted grades: accuracy and impact. Report for UCU, December. 18 UCU (2017) Transparency at the top? The third report of senior pay and perks in UK universities, February.  19 The Financial Sustainability Strategy Group (FSSG) The sustainability of learning and teaching in higher education in England, p. 3. 20 UCU (2016) Precarious work in higher education: a snapshot of insecure contracts and institutional attitudes. 21 UCU (2015) Making ends meet- The human cost of casualisation in post-secondary education, p. 1. 22 Bryson, C. (2013) ‘Supporting sessional teaching staff in the UK – to what extent is there real progress?’ Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 10, Issue 3. 23 The Delphi project on the changing faculty and student success http://www.thechangingfaculty.org/

24 Karran, T and Mallinson, L. (2017) Academic Freedom in the U.K.: Legal and Normative Protection in a Comparative Context. Report for the University and College Union, May.

 

October 2017

  

VAL0038

  

Written Evidence submitted by the University of Bedfordshire University of Bedfordshire mission, students and income

1. The University of Bedfordshire is a modern university with a mission to expand education opportunity and broaden horizons and understanding across the communities we engage. We undertake teaching and research across multiple sites at our campuses in Luton, Bedford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes and London. We deliver a wide range of vocationally-oriented degree courses in Business, Education, Sport, Healthcare, Social Sciences, Creative Arts, Media and Performance, Computer Science and Technology and Life Sciences. In 2019 we plan to open a new building focused on teaching and research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics subjects, expanding our course provision in these strategically important subject areas.

2. The University has an income of approximately £125 million annually,

almost entirely from student fees. We have had historical success in recruiting overseas students, but have seen a decline in numbers following the implementation of a more punitive Tier IV visa regime and the implementation of a 10% visa refusal threshold for sponsors of student visas. The UK’s departure from the EU has created uncertainty in the EU student market and led to a reduction in EU student numbers applying to the University in 2017-18.

3. About half of our students come from lower socio-economic backgrounds,

more than one-third are mature entrants to higher education and 40 per cent are from Black or minority ethnic backgrounds. The University takes real pride in offering a supportive environment in which students without a family background in higher education can flourish and succeed. In the 2018 Guardian league table the University was ranked sixteenth in the UK on the value-added measure, representing the academic ‘distance travelled’ by students between entry and graduation.

4. Over the past five years the University has placed a priority on enhancing

the student learning experience. We have invested £180 million in our estates, bringing the learning environment up to date. We have enhanced student voice and feedback mechanisms, involving students at every level of academic and corporate governance. For example, the President of the Students’ Union is a full member of the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group.

5. We have undertaken detailed work at course level to enhance the student

experience as measured through the annual National Student Survey,

VAL0038

  

with the result that between 2013-17 the University is among the top 25 universities in the UK for improving the student experience, and was first in the UK in 2014. Our most recent higher education review by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in 2015 resulted in a commendation for enhancing student learning opportunities and the identification of eight areas of good practice. In the academic year 2015 only one-quarter of reviews conducted by the QAA resulted in a commendation.

6. In 2012 we set our fee at £9,000, taking account of the average cost of

course delivery and the additional costs of supporting disadvantaged students through our Access Agreement. We also recognised that in a changed funding environment students would expect to see additional investment in the student experience, and that in the higher education market price is typically perceived as an indicator of quality. Since 2012 the value of the fee has eroded through inflation to £8,275 in 2016-17. The University has also faced significant competitive pressure from the removal of the student number cap and the expansionist ambitions of hitherto highly selective universities. We have responded in line with our mission to expand opportunity through developing a new entry route via a Foundation Year, which has proved highly popular especially among mature applicants, through expansion of partnership delivery in London and elsewhere, and increasingly through higher and degree apprenticeships.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

7. The University is committed to supporting its graduates into employment and has adopted a number of employability initiatives in pursuit of that objective including optional credit-bearing employability course units, a ‘with placement’ option for every subject area, course-specific employability mapping and a graduate development programme. Employer engagement is embedded across our curriculum through employer talks, employer participation on curriculum review and the use of real-life business projects in assessment.

8. The University’s graduate-level employment rate has increased by ten

percentage points over the last two years to 68 per cent. By 2020 we plan to increase that number to 75 per cent.

9. The evidence suggests that expansion of higher education has not

negatively affected the financial returns to higher education in the form of the graduate premium, which has held steady at £100,000 over a graduate’s lifetime earnings. Longitudinal Destination of Leavers data for 2017 shows that 84 per cent of graduates in work were employed in

VAL0038

  

graduate-level jobs 3.5 years after graduation, suggesting that concerns about utilisation of graduates’ skills is at risk of being overstated.

10.Longitudinal Educational Outcome (LEO) data has indicated that for the

majority of graduates, the earnings premium can reasonably be anticipated to be greater than the cost of higher education – albeit most graduates will not in any case repay the full cost of their higher education because of the (entirely appropriate) public subsidy of the student loan book.

11.LEO data has prompted concerns about the minority of graduates who do

not ultimately enjoy an earnings premium. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed to the effects of social background, gender and subject of study on the returns to higher education, all of which provides important context for the raw data.1 We can reasonably presume that the field that graduates choose to work in is also an important predictor of salary.

12.We do not dispute that longitudinal data on graduate employment

outcomes can be of value to inform student choice. However, data of this nature must be carefully contextualised. For example, the long-term returns to graduates of particular subject areas in 2006 may not be a robust predictor of long-term outcomes in that subject area for students making choices in 2017.

13.There is also no simple association that can be made between the return

to the graduate and the cost of delivery of the subject. For example, creative arts, media and performance subjects and some areas of healthcare bring significant costs for equipment and materials but may not bring above-average long-term returns in earnings.

14.In a system driven by student choice we would not wish to make too close

an association between subjects and putative salary returns to the subject. Some students may be primarily motivated by future earnings gains, while others are motivated by the desire to help others, by the allure of working in a creative role, or working for oneself, or by the desire to work in a particular field of employment whatever the salary returns.

15.We would also not wish to see a system that discouraged graduates from

entrepreneurship. The University of Bedfordshire is a leading university for graduate start-ups as measured by turnover, and Universities UK estimates there were 4,100 graduate companies started in 2014-15, employing 21,000 people.2 Not every start-up will produce significant

                                                       1 IFS working paper W16/06 How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background (April 2016) 2 Universities UK, The economic impact of universities in 2014-15 (2017) 

VAL0038

  

salary returns, not least because entrepreneurs tend to reinvest profits in business growth or take their benefits in ways other than through a salary.

16.Where we see real value in graduate destination data is in exploring

further the causes and consequences of the gender pay gap, which is prompting us to reflect on whether we have a role in combating the pay gap in particular subject areas and if so, what that might be. We are also reflecting on how we engage with employers in fields with historically lower salary returns to understand the reasons and the extent to which these are related to graduates’ skills. The role of employers in making effective use of graduate-level skills to drive enhanced productivity is rarely invoked in the debates about returns to higher education, but it is an important dimension of the issue.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

17.The University of Bedfordshire recruits high proportions of disadvantaged and under-represented students. We have a long history of delivering outreach to schools and the community and we are at the forefront of widening access practice. We believe firmly that widening access requires work to promote progression into higher education and support for retention and success for students while studying.

18.The University’s Access Agreement for 2018-19 commits £9.3 million on

access measures including outreach, provision of financial support and student bursaries and activities to support student retention, progression and success.

19.Higher Education Access Tracker data shows the impact of our outreach

work. 37 per cent of young people from POLAR 1 and 2 postcodes who engage with the University’s access programmes progress into higher education, a rate 12 percentage points higher than the generality of young people with POLAR 1 and 2 postcodes (25 per cent). The students who progress into higher education achieve good degrees at the same rate as the general student population.

20.The University’s student support structures reflect our student

demographic. We offer comprehensive wellbeing and financial advice and academic skills development support. All students benefit from a personal tutor and we have rolled out a peer-assisted learning scheme in which students in their second year support those in their first. Within Faculties and courses, significant work is undertaken to keep students on track by our Associate Deans for Student Experience, working with course

VAL0038

  

coordinators. Our Careers and Employability Service has developed approaches to working with students with limited experience of professional life, including additional support for communication skills. Students on our Foundation Year receive an intensive programme of academic support and development, focused on future employability and personal career aspirations.

21.The University has pioneered short-term international student mobility

opportunities through its innovative Go Global programme. Students spend two or three weeks based at a partner institution in countries like China, Vietnam, India, Egypt, or Mauritius. The programme is heavily subsidised to ensure that students from low-income backgrounds have access to the personal and professional development from experiencing international travel and study.

22.Historically universities that recruit larger proportions of less advantaged

students have benefitted from additional public support through the HEFCE-administered Student Opportunity Allocation, in recognition of the additional costs of supporting those students. Last year that funding stream was cut in half, making us more dependent on student fee income to support our access work. Moreover, the long-term future of the Student Opportunity Allocation is uncertain. Certainly, were the undergraduate fee cap to be reduced, we would expect to see a reduction in progress into higher education of those students who have most to gain from a higher education qualification.

23.League tables tend to disincentivise access work, as they use the metric

of entry grades as an indicator of performance. It is widely recognised that the academic performance of young people is correlated with their social background. As a consequence, those universities, like Bedfordshire, that do the heaviest lifting on access face a natural ceiling on league table performance. We are unwilling to compromise our mission to widen access for the sake of league table performance and reputation. However, we would not wish the committee to be persuaded by narratives in the media about so-called poor-performing ‘ex-polytechnics’.

24.League tables do not control for student demographic and are not a

robust indicator of institutional performance. The exception is the Guardian’s value-added measure which makes a meaningful effort to capture the distance travelled by students who may enter higher education with poor grades, but who, with the support of their university, manage to graduate with a good degree. As such the University commends efforts to capture and measure learning gain, believing that if robust, these will demonstrate the relative educational value for students

VAL0038

  

from less advantaged backgrounds of a higher education qualification, compared to those from more privileged backgrounds.

25.An additional point to make is that access work inevitably involves a

degree of cross-subsidy. The access agreement system is a de facto top-slice of the unit of resource/fee per student to create a pot from which the most disadvantaged students gain the most benefit. This is a positive and progressive system, but clearly mitigates against any straightforward alignment between one student’s fee and the ‘value’ gained to that student from their higher education experience.

Senior management pay in universities

26.The University recognises the need for constraint in executive pay, and the Vice Chancellor has refused the pay increase offered by the Remuneration Committee of the Board of Governors two years’ running. The Vice Chancellor’s pay is in any case below the national average.

27.We also acknowledge the reasonable expectation of students, University

staff and the public for universities to be transparent and to make reasonable judgements in the setting of executive pay. As such we are reviewing and updating our policies and processes to be confident that we are meeting those expectations.

28.However, we do not consider executive pay to be a core value for money

concern. The Vice Chancellor’s salary represents less than 0.2 per cent of University annual turnover. Moreover, University executives lead hugely complex organisations with significant public accountabilities. Universities must be free to set a level of executive pay that reflects the demands and responsibilities of the roles in question, and that reflects a market rate that enables universities to recruit and retain high-quality staff.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

29.In line with delivery of vocationally-oriented and employer-engaged qualification, the University’s pedagogy is applied, with students working in environments and on assessments designed to replicate professional employment. Students are taught by academic staff actively engaged in research and professional practice.

30.For example, our Business School has pioneered the use of Practice

Weeks, in which students work collaboratively on real-world problems set by regional employers. The University-sponsored company Media Junction employs students to create promotional videos and hosts regular employer networking events. Likewise our Guildford Street Press employs

VAL0038

  

students for design commissions within the University and for the local community. When the University hosts high-profile speakers they are interviewed by Journalism students and the students are encouraged to pitch their interviews to local media. Psychology students benefit from a research assistant programme, giving them professional experience of Psychology research. Our unique Refugee Legal Assistance Project gives Law students the opportunity to support refugees to make family reunion applications.

31.The University was proud to receive a Silver award in the Teaching

Excellence Framework. In metrics for assessment and feedback the University received a positive flag, indicating performance significantly above benchmark in that area over the last three years. In making their judgement the panel made reference to the University’s curriculum framework, our systems for personalised learning, our personal academic tutoring and peer assisted learning schemes, our wraparound professional support services and our investment in the learning environment.

32.The University was also recognised for its sector-leading efforts to develop

and reward teaching excellence, with 80 per cent of teaching staff holding or working towards Higher Education Academy accreditation for teaching, well above both our mission group and the sector average on this measure.

33.Our internal Bedfordshire Unit Survey data tells a positive story, with the

proportion of courses achieving over 70 per cent student satisfaction having increased from 61 per cent to 85 per cent between 2013/14 and 2015/16, and with more than half achieving over 90 per cent satisfaction. In questions relating to the crucial areas of student engagement and intellectual challenge we have seen in the same period a 17 percentage-point increase in students agreeing that their course has challenged them to achieve their best work, from 64 per cent to 81 per cent.

34.We have invested heavily in a learning resource strategy, working closely

with students in the design of a brand new library, and on the provision of the appropriate balance of hard-copy and e-resources. As a result in the National Student Survey of 2017 we entered the top quartile in the country on the learning resources scale.

35.As such we are confident that we offer a high-quality learning experience,

but we believe we can go even further. Our Strategic Plan for 2017-20 includes a range of new initiatives, including a student academic skills diagnostic on entry, development of the curriculum to include engagement with public policy challenges, new initiatives to measure and enhance learning gain, and the development of student academic societies to

VAL0038

  

encourage student leadership in personal and professional subject-relevant development.

36.We recognise that for students value is located both in the quality of

teaching in the classroom/learning resources and in the co- and extra-curricular offer and the provision of services.3 As such we have invested in the students’ union, increasing the annual block grant in 2013, and carrying out an upgrade to student social facilities worth half a million pounds in 2016. We have appointed a Student Experience team that runs initiatives such as the Vice Chancellor’s Student Experience Awards, student shadowing scheme to help develop a shared understanding between staff and students, and student-led student experience projects.

37.Where we can face significant challenges in maintaining student

engagement is in the complexities of our students’ lives. Many live at home, not on campus, most face occasional or frequent financial hardship, and consequentially many have jobs in addition to their study. Our students are in the main committed to their study, but their confidence levels can be low and their prior experience of education is not always positive. As such, the possibility of a family problem, a health problem or a period of financial hardship tends to have a pronounced impact, and our students are at higher risk of suspending or leaving their studies, or simply failing to take advantage of the range of opportunities for personal, academic and professional development available to them. On graduation financial pressures may encourage students to sustain their student employment, for example, in the service industry, making them less attractive to graduate-level employers.

38.The University works extremely hard to enhance the social capital of its

students and, as evidenced above, with a good degree of success. However, the fundamental social inequities our students face compared with those from wealthier backgrounds is always part of the equation.

39.The need for wraparound services outside the classroom to support

learning and teaching is also the reason why the argument that some courses are cheaper to deliver does not stand up to scrutiny. Delivery of mainly classroom-based subjects is in principle less costly than lab-based or creative subjects, but all students must have access to the virtual learning environment and hard-copy learning resources, to extra-curricular opportunities, to welfare services and the students’ union. We would not argue that students should have reduced access to centralised services on the grounds that their subject was classroom-based.

                                                       3 Universities UK report, Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university (June 2017)

VAL0038

  

40.Moreover, the University – rightly – must expend considerable resource in

the registration of students, the maintenance of a complaints and appeals system, management and governance of academic quality, and the collection, maintenance and submission of student data to external bodies. None of these costs relate to the subject of study; they are part and parcel of running a university that is publicly accountable and legally compliant. Where critics advise that we should reduce ‘managers’ in universities, it is to these necessary and important functions that they – albeit typically in ignorance – refer.

41.We do not make these points to be defensive. We recognise that students

and the public have legitimate value for money concerns and deserve to be assured that institutional funds are well-spent. We also acknowledge that we could do more to explain to students how we spend fee income, given that so much that universities do is essentially invisible to students and the public, or certainly not typically accounted for in calculations about value.

42.However, Government and regulators must take an evidence-based

approach to thinking through how universities can reasonably evidence value for money. The evidence we have presented shows that we are not working to high profit margins, and that we are investing sizeable amounts in the student learning environment, in the student experience and in access to higher education. We listen and respond to the student voice, we hold our staff to high standards of delivery, and we draw on the evidence of where we can enhance our services to students.

43.Universities must balance their investment of resource (including contact

time) with the educational outcomes for students. At some point there will be diminishment in the return on investment, which may in any case be beyond an individual university’s financial capability to deliver. So much of the value that can be gained from higher education depends on students’ own efforts and engagement with their course, with their peers and tutors, and with extra-curricular opportunities. While we certainly advocate wider engagement with the University community, we cannot control the level of commitment students are willing to make.

The role of the Office for Students

44.The University believes that the role of the Office for Students in relation to value for money should be the following:

a) Continue to run the Teaching Excellence Framework, which provides high-

quality evidence through institutional submissions of the range and impact

VAL0038

  

of activities universities are doing to deliver excellent teaching above and beyond the baseline quality expectation. Make use of the quantitative and qualitative evidence to publish examples of high-impact practices or work with an appropriate body to ensure this work is undertaken.

b) The OfS should accept that it has a role in explaining and contextualising

the data it publishes through TEF, including the important role of benchmarking in making judgements about relative teaching excellence. This will be particularly important when Longitudinal Educational Outcome data is added as a supplementary metric to TEF, and will need to be appropriately benchmarked in order to make meaningful comparisons.

c) In any investigation of teaching intensity, approach the topic without

preconceptions and with the commitment to be informed by the latest pedagogical evidence of the educational value of contact time, class size, additional academic support, online learning materials and learning resources.

d) Be consistent and transparent in how it arrives at judgements, and what

metrics, qualitative information, research evidence and expert advice it will take into account.

e) Monitor and publish Vice Chancellor pay for the benefit of students and

the public – as this is public information in any case and is currently only collated by the Universities and Colleges Union through an annual Freedom of Information request, the OfS could perform a real service in producing validated data which could then be used for benchmarking purposes.

f) The OfS should consider how activities that universities undertake that

add to the public good can be captured as part of a wider value for money landscape. An immediate example is the duty on OfS to ensure that universities work with local councils for the purpose of student voter registration – in order to carry out this duty the OfS will need to monitor whether voter registration is taking place and the impact on the likelihood of students to vote.

g) Commit to maintaining the Student Opportunity Allocation as part of the

support for equality of opportunity and access, and acknowledge and additional costs of recruiting and support less advantaged students in higher education.

October 2017

VAL0065

  

Written Evidence submitted by the University of

Cambridge This response is submitted by Professor Graham Virgo, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education on behalf of the University of Cambridge and following consultation with the Cambridge University Students’ Union. Introduction and context

i. The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.1

ii. The relationship between the University and the 31 independent Colleges

is fundamental to realising this mission, with the Colleges responsible for admission of undergraduate students, their welfare and some of their teaching through the supervision system and the University responsible for lectures, seminars, laboratory facilities, libraries and library services and examination, as well as some welfare support. The Colleges and University co-operate in ensuring that undergraduates receive an education of the highest quality, with the Colleges and the central University together meeting a range of costs towards undergraduate education.

iii. The University of Cambridge is proud of its exceptional provision for

undergraduates and we believe that we provide value for money for students: particularly as the cost of our undergraduate education significantly exceeds our Home/EU fee income. This is demonstrated in Parts 1 and 2, below. In Part 3, however, we emphasise caution in framing university education solely in terms of monetary value. We discuss the importance of distinguishing between cost and value, and interrogate the ways in which the value of a degree varies by constituency and is therefore largely unquantifiable.

Part 1: Education costs and income

                                                            1This is the charitable mission of the University as an exempt charity subject to regulation by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) under the Charities Act 2011. See: https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

VAL0065

  

1.1 The University of Cambridge is a research-intensive collegiate University offering undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision. The University’s provision also includes part-time postgraduate degrees, with the Institute of Continuing Education offering part-time qualifications. As befits an institution engaged in these diverse yet interconnected activities, the University’s income which is spent on education and teaching activities derives from a variety of sources, both public and private.

Summary of University education income and expenditure Tuition fee income spent on undergraduate education (across all

nationalities) represented 10.2% of the academic University’s2 total income in 2015-16.

Approximately 8% of the total income in 2015-16 was accounted for by fees for Home/EU undergraduate education.

In 2015-16, 25.6% (£30.2m) of undergraduate fee income took the form of overseas (non-EU) fees and 74.4% (£87.9m) was Home/EU fee income.

In 2017-18 the University will receive £17.9m from the Higher Education Funding Council for England as a teaching grant towards undergraduate education.

In 2015-16, the collegiate University spent £143.6m on undergraduate education. Some of this expenditure is supported by private non-fee income (see below: University subsidy of undergraduate education).

Income from postgraduate fees amounted to £91.7m in 2015-16 (£57.6m covering overseas postgraduates and £34.1m covering Home/EU postgraduates).

1.2 The University’s research activities, including postgraduate research

projects, are largely funded by UK and EU public research grants, which recognises and rewards excellence. Research at the University also attracts funding from industrial and charity partners, who in turn help to fund joint schemes supporting PhD studentships and lectureships.3

1.3 It is also important to note that the University’s research activity, which is funded by non-fee sources (there is no subsidy of research by tuition fees at Cambridge), actively enriches and informs our undergraduate teaching and the research-inspired learning experiences we can provide.

                                                            2 The University of Cambridge, excluding Cambridge Assessment and Cambridge University Press. 3 See for example: https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/astrazeneca-and-cambridge-announce-new-joint-phd-and-clinical-research-scholarships and https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/cambridge-scientists-set-to-get-ps41-million-boost-from-cancer-research-uk 

VAL0065

  

Part 2: Overview of Undergraduate cost at the University of Cambridge

a) The average annual cost of an undergraduate education at Cambridge is calculated as £18,500, based on 2015-16 figures. The cost of an undergraduate education at collegiate Cambridge comprises:

2015–16 £k/UG FTE

University expenditure 14.4

Less: College fee (4.5)

Net University expenditure 9.9

Plus: College expenditure 8.6

Total cost 18.5 Cost calculations

2.1 The collegiate University bases its decision to charge Home/EU students the maximum fee it is able to charge on an annual calculation of the average cost of an undergraduate education at Cambridge, which combines University and College expenditure per student on education. College costs include the costs of small group teaching, tutorial and welfare support, admissions, scholarships, bursaries and other financial awards and educational facilities. The costs of non-educational facilities are excluded from these calculations. The University provides lectures, seminars, laboratory facilities, libraries and library services and examination, as well as some welfare support.

2.2 The model for calculating the cost of an undergraduate education at

Cambridge uses data from published sources, from the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) and the Cambridge Colleges.4

University subsidy

2.3 The £18,500 cost per student per annum means the collegiate University recoups only half of the total cost of educating undergraduates from tuition fees (£9,000-9,250 per Home/EU student depending on year of admission).

                                                            4 The TRAC is an activity-based costing system that allows reported expenditure to take account of the full economic cost. TRAC information is reported to The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) annually.

 

VAL0065

  

The headline rate of fees has increased since 2012, but during this same period the public funding towards teaching costs has also declined. The total unit of resource received by the University for Home undergraduate education from fees and public grants is therefore insufficient to cover the full cost of education at Cambridge.

Fees: No cross-activity subsidy

2.4 As collegiate Cambridge’s income from the Home/EU tuition fee does not cover the full cost of undergraduate education, there is no ‘surplus’ that can be used to subsidise other areas of spending. The one exception to this is access and outreach activity, to which the collegiate University devotes approximately a third of its additional fee income above the basic rate of £6,0000 as a condition of the approval of our Access Agreements.

2.5 Aside from this mandatory access spend (which, due to the scope of our

widening participation endeavours and ambitions, benefits a significantly larger constituency than those who are eventually admitted at Cambridge as fee-paying students), all of the University's Home/EU undergraduate tuition fee income is invested directly into our undergraduate education.

Fees: No cross-subject subsidy

2.6 The University has found no evidence of cross-subsidy of Home/EU fee income towards STEMM courses from Arts/Humanities/Social Science courses. There is a difference between the costs of delivering STEMM and non-STEMM courses, but this is narrowed by the income the University receives from HEFCE to support the delivery of STEMM subjects. It is vital that this financial support for high-cost subjects continues. However, because even the cost of Arts/ Humanities/Social Science courses is significantly higher than the maximum tuition fee, there is no cross-subject subsidy.

Part 3: Conflation and distinction between cost and value

3.1 In the context of this inquiry it is vital to avoid the conflation of cost and value – although this does not mean there is no connection between the two.

3.2 The cost of undergraduate education is objective; it can be proven and is material. For example, there is a cost of £18,500 per undergraduate

VAL0065

  

student per annum at Cambridge. Any reduction in the funding received by the University would have a real, material impact on whether we would be able to continue to meet the costs of providing a world-class education. In turn, any difficulties in meeting that cost would carry adverse consequences for the value of that education.

3.3 Value is less straightforward to breakdown or illustrate in figures: it

cannot be easily ‘costed’; it is in part subjective; it is largely an ‘output’ rather than an ‘input’ and its components are non-economic as well as economic. For example, aspects of the ‘value’ of collegiate Cambridge’s education include: enhancing the students’ ability to learn throughout life, encouraging a questioning spirit, and cultivating a close inter-relationship between teaching, scholarship and research.5

3.4 However, the differences outlined above do not mean that there is no

relationship between cost and value. Rather, we would argue that the cost of a Cambridge education is intrinsic to sustaining and enhancing the value of a Cambridge education. If the cost cannot be met, this value could correspondingly suffer.

Part 4: Discussion of value for money

4.1 As indicated above, whilst the cost of educating each undergraduate at Cambridge can be demonstrated with costing data, it is less easy to relate the ultimate ‘value’ of the education ‘experience’ to the upfront £9,000/£9,250 tuition fee figure. ‘Value’ cannot be measured by reference to the starting salary obtained on graduation either – the impact of a Cambridge education has economic and non-economic benefits for life.

4.2 The exercise of relating ‘cost’ to ‘value’ is further complicated by the fact

that, in addition, students, taxpayers and Universities themselves may have different views of what constitutes ‘value’.

Value by constituency

4.3 Appreciating that different constituencies of funders invest in higher education, it is important to consider ‘value for money’ from these constituencies’ different perspectives: i.e., the student’s, the taxpayer/Government, and the University’s.

                                                            5 https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

VAL0065

  

4.4 The student’s perspective: Whilst a university may receive the higher rate of £9,000/£9,250 per student in the form of a Government-backed loan, the final outlay from the student (i.e. the amount of the loan the student repays, plus any taxes that subsidise the RAB charge) varies considerably between individuals. Some students may not even need to take out a loan, as they can receive financial support from their family.

a. The repayment model for student loan debt also means different repayment totals for different students. In addition, the conversion of maintenance grants to maintenance loans has increased the total debt incurred by students from low-income backgrounds, which may lead to greater aggregate debt repayments over a lifetime than would have been the case had grants still been available. Altogether, this means that the headline fee figure of £9,000/£9,250 does not represent what students, especially students from different backgrounds, are actually paying.

b. The Big Cambridge Survey Report 2016-176, commissioned by the

Cambridge University Students’ Union, demonstrates that employment post-Cambridge is a significant concern for many students at every level of education. But value is not just a question of earnings: students also come to Cambridge in order to develop their confidence, to broaden their horizons and to learn skills for the career they want to pursue and for life. Two annual surveys, Trendence and Universum, show that Cambridge students place “intellectual challenge” and “contribution to society” over salary as a key criteria in their career search, again pointing to the wider aspects of ‘value’ of higher education.7

4.5 The taxpayer/Government’s perspective: The Government offers a

£9,000/£9,250 loan per student to cover tuition costs. In some cases it will recoup the value of all of this (possibly more, due to high interest rates), and in some cases it will fail to recoup all or even any of this. Indeed, the Government has described the RAB charge as a deliberate policy to ensure taxpayer subsidy of the system.8 In addition, HEFCE distributes some funding to support high-cost subjects.

                                                            6 Big Cambridge Survey Report (CUSU) 2016-17. The most recent Big Cambridge Survey received 3,427 initial responses from Cambridge students during the academic year 2015-16. Undergraduates represented 67% of respondents. 67% of respondents were UK, 16% from non-UK EU nations and 17% non-EU overseas. 7 See for example https://universumglobal.com/ideal-employer-rankings/student-surveys/uk/ 8 See for example Jo Johnson MP’s speech Delivering value for money for students and taxpayers (July 2017): “(The write-off) is the result of a deliberate choice to share the costs and risks of university education between the student and the state.... It is a

VAL0065

  

It is likely that taxpayers and the Government find some value in the social benefits of graduates trained in health, medicine, creative arts, education, engineering and other fields which serve to boost the wellbeing, prosperity, education and skills-base of the country.

4.6 The University’s perspective. The University of Cambridge acknowledges its responsibilities to use its resources in partnership with Government and students in order to deliver excellent education, as part of its charitable mission. The collegiate University therefore makes a substantial contribution from its own resources to undergraduate education and seeks to supplement this through fundraising.

4.7 Collegiate Cambridge is convinced that this investment in its students rebounds positively for the University as a higher education institution devoted to delivering excellent education and to ensuring our courses are refreshed and responsive to learners’ feedback.9 The collegiate University’s investment in undergraduate education also supports the emergence of talented postgraduate students and future academics, who help to sustain our world-leading standards in research and education.

Graduate outcomes and destination data

5.1 As evidenced in the Destination of Leavers of Higher Education (DLHE) survey results for 2015-16, Cambridge’s graduates are less likely to be unemployed six months after graduation than is the case nationally (4% unemployment compared to 5% nationally). DHLE data for 2011-12 to 2015-16 show that Cambridge graduates in work are also more likely to be in graduate-level jobs (87.8% compared to 68.5% nationally and 77.9% among the Russell Group universities). Cambridge graduates also have amongst the highest starting salaries in the UK (the combined average for leavers in work was £30,069).10

5.2 Our research shows that Cambridge graduates from low-income

households are as successful in the employment market as their higher income peers.11

                                                            conscious investment in the skills base of the country, not a symptom of a broken student finance system.” 9 University of Cambridge’s TEF Year Two Provider Submission, p.3. (Hereafter: University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission.) 10 Destination of Leavers of Higher Education (DLHE) survey, 2011-12 to 2015-16. 11 Analysis of relative employment outcomes for those students receiving an award through the Cambridge Bursary Scheme conducted by Cambridge Careers Service in February 2015. 

VAL0065

  

5.3 The University’s TEF Year Two gold assessment confirms that the University achieves consistently outstanding outcomes for its students from all backgrounds, particularly as regards retention and progression to highly-skilled employment and further study:

“The University is exceptionally successful in equipping its students to achieve positive outcomes after graduation, with ++ flags in ‘highly-skilled employment or further study’ for every group of students and additional + flags in ‘employment’ for BME students and students with disabilities.”12

5.4 CUSU’s Big Cambridge Survey Report 2016-17 found that 75% of respondents were confident in finding paid employment after their studies – although this figure fell to 66% of those who found finances at university problematic.13

Employability

6.1 The University of Cambridge consistently ranks in the top three in the Times Higher Education Supplement’s Global Employability University rankings, which are based on large samples of employers voting on which universities produce the most employable graduates. The new QS Graduate Employability Rankings also placed Cambridge top in Europe and fourth in the world

6.2 Cambridge students develop significant transferable skills during their

studies. In small-group teaching, students develop the ability to engage in academic discussion and debate with an expert on a regular basis, producing skills that employers value highly, such as the ability to formulate and respond to arguments, to assimilate complex ideas, and to apply information in new contexts.

6.3 Student-run societies offer an additional environment where students

nurture skills that are attractive to employers, such as those in entrepreneurship. For example, the Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club hosts the annual Technology Ventures Conference which connects entrepreneurs, academics, investors and business professionals in Cambridge. Cambridge University Entrepreneurs runs an extensive programme of events and networking opportunities, as well as one of the most successful business creation competitions in the world.

6.4 For students interested in using entrepreneurship specifically to tackle

social challenges, Cambridge Hub, a student-led group supported by the

                                                            12 University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.1. 13 Big Cambridge Survey, p.20.  

VAL0065

  

Careers Service, offers volunteering opportunities with 121 local organisations, research and consultancy placements through the Social Innovation Programme and summer internships through the Social Impact Internship Scheme.

Careers Service

7.1 The TEF 2 statement of findings for the University of Cambridge identifies and specifically praises the University’s Careers Service as a factor in the University’s Gold TEF award. Indeed, the TEF panel commends the Careers Service for “allow(ing) students to tailor work experience to their needs”14.

7.2 The Careers Service supports students in securing highly-skilled

employment through many initiatives and activities aimed at improving graduates’ employability, for example through the Service’s flagship publication ‘CV and Cover Letters’. Since 2015, this 80-page guide has been downloaded 10,034 times by registered users of the Careers Service website.

7.3 The Careers Service also has a strong Employers Advisory Group,

consisting of around 120 members representing organisations mainly in finance, law, manufacturing, engineering and management consultancy. Employers Advisory Group members make a voluntary financial contribution to the running of the Careers Service and deliver skills training sessions.

7.4 The Careers Service offers personalised support to students to find

employment that they will find meaningful and fulfilling. It runs a very popular event each year entitled ‘But I don’t want to work in the City’ and uses money paid by other recruiters to subsidise representatives from non-profit organisations to attend recruitment events at the University.

7.5 Funding from the Careers Service Supporters Club, along with additional

funding from the University, issued to support the Careers Service Summary Bursary Scheme, which allows students to undertake low-paid or unpaid summer placements with companies in the Arts and Heritage, Media or not-for-profit sectors. The Careers Service also promotes internship opportunities and by the February of their final year 43% of respondents to the High Fliers survey 2017 had secured a job offer based on their placements, the highest proportion seen in the survey.15

                                                            14 TEF Year Two Statement of Findings for University of Cambridge (HEFCE). 15 http://www.highfliers.co.uk/ 

VAL0065

  

Postgraduate progression

8.1 According to the DLHE survey of first degree Cambridge students graduating in 2015/16, 13% of responding leavers went into “Study for further degree by research” and another 13% went into “Study for further degree by taught course”. An additional 7% went into other categories of further study (such as legal training and teacher training).16 This adds up to 33% of all 2015/16 first degree respondents progressing into further study, compared to 17% nationally.17

8.2 From a longer-term perspective, according to the Longitudinal DLHE

survey of students graduating in 2010/11, 19.6% of Cambridge graduates were in further study or ‘work and further study’ after three years, compared to 16.7% of Russell Group graduates and 11.1% for the whole higher education sector. Exposure to research-led teaching and the opportunity for undergraduates to take on research projects are two factors in this higher-than-sector-average rate of progression to further study.

8.3 Cambridge undergraduates who have progressed to a further programme,

for example a PGCE or MPhil, have told us:

a. “The academic support and expertise available even to undergraduates at Cambridge allowed me to really push myself academically, particularly in research. Having so many resources available and a supportive supervisor helped me realise how much I love historical research, and encouraged me to apply for a postgraduate course. The supervision system at undergraduate gave me confidence in my essay writing as a historian, which helped me enjoy the course more, rather than just getting through it. By my third year of undergrad, I thought I had more to offer as a historian, so applied for the MPhil here at Cambridge.” (History MPhil).

b. “Studying History at Cambridge completely changed the way I

viewed history as a discipline, and it enabled me to learn about such a broad spectrum of fascinating things. Whilst teaching isn't the best paid job in the world, I couldn't think of anything I'd rather do than to spread this history to secondary school students. Without the government funding I received, I'd probably be typing up inane business-speak emails for a high-paying consultancy firm,

                                                            16 http://www.careers.cam.ac.uk/dlhe/summary/Report.asp?KeyID=8654. Percentages given are as a total of responding leavers (2685). 17 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/destinations 

VAL0065

  

rather than having the opportunity to change students lives every day.” (PGCE).

c. “Form the first term of my first year there were opportunities to get

stuck in with new and exciting research. By the end of my second year I had an acknowledgement on a well-received study, and by the end of undergrad I had presented a prize-winning paper at an international conference thanks to the help and support of the academics here at Cambridge. This, in combination with the excellent teaching and access to a wealth of guest speakers, left no doubt in my mind that I wanted to pursue this discipline beyond a Bachelor’s degree.” (Psychology Masters).

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

9.1 The collegiate University’s TEF Year 2 Provider Submission identifies the distinguishing characteristics of our teaching and learning provision. These contributed towards the University’s Gold award in Year Two of the TEF, as explained in the statement of findings:

a. “The metrics indicate outstanding levels of satisfaction with

teaching and academic support from a diverse body of students. “The Panel considered all the information in the provider submission in relation to the TEF criteria and its judgement reflects, in particular, evidence of: • a student learning experience based on small groups and responsive supervisions which enables students to engage with world-leading scholars and to receive ongoing personalised feedback on their academic progress; • outstanding facilities which provide a physical and digital learning environment that is world-leading and of the highest quality; • course design that embeds outstanding rigour and stretch;.”18

Supervisions and pastoral support

9.2 Cambridge’s undergraduate supervisions are primarily organised through a student’s College and involve a small number of students (typically two or three) meeting with a subject-specialist teacher for an in-depth discussion of a particular topic. Supervisions provide each student with high levels of contact time and feedback on their work, providing unsurpassed opportunities for formative assessment.

                                                            18 TEF Year Two Statement of Findings for the University of Cambridge.

VAL0065

  

9.3 This unique element of the collegiate educational provision has been applauded by TEF assessors and its value has also been evidenced consistently by NSS returns. In 2016, 89% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘I am satisfied with the supervisions my College provides’.19

9.4 Supervisions allow teaching to be tailored in recognition of the individual

student’s strengths, weaknesses and specific academic interests. It is normal for Colleges to arrange supervision, including for dissertations and projects, by experts from University Departments or other Colleges to expressly match the interests and needs of their undergraduates.

9.5 Each student has a College-appointed Director of Studies who acts as an

academic mentor and who meets with each student at least twice a term to discuss their performance and development. Each student also has a College personal Tutor who is responsible for pastoral support. Like Directors of Studies, Tutors can liaise as necessary with Faculties, Departments, and if appropriate the University’s Disability Resource Centre and Counselling Service, to ensure students are adequately supported throughout their studies. Pastoral support provided through the College tutorial system is highly effective in identifying and supporting students experiencing mental health problems. In addition the University has a well-resourced Counselling Service.

Research-informed teaching and learning 10.1 At Cambridge, research and teaching are intimately interwoven at

undergraduate level, including research projects and summer research initiatives, allowing students to work within a research group.

10.2 The vast majority (89%) of the University’s teachers are also active researchers, and are expected to use their research expertise to guide their teaching.20 Importantly, developments in the research conducted by those who teach help to ensure that all parts of the curriculum are regularly refreshed.

10.3 The University’s research profile also makes it possible for Faculties and

Departments to offer high-quality research projects as part of an undergraduate degree. Final-year assignments may be active research projects in which students collaborate with academics. Faculties and

                                                            19 University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.2. 20 Of the 1,876 academic staff members engaged in teaching, 1,661 (89%) were also engaged in research and returned in the REF (figures taken from the most recent HESA Staff return, 31 July 2016). 

VAL0065

  

Departments are also able to offer extra-curricular opportunities, such as research placements.21

Quality and Excellence 11.1 External Examiners commonly comment that the undergraduate degrees

offered by Cambridge are some of the highest quality in the UK. In 2016 comments included “The standards of the scripts was high and there was plenty of evidence of outstanding teaching…I would give it as my judgment that there is a significant gap between the attainment of Cambridge students and those at a Russell Group university” (first year History); “at a time when at other institutions the important pharmacology content of medical and vet degree courses seems to be shrinking, it is very good to see that this appears not to be the case at Cambridge” (second year Medicine and Veterinary medicine); “this course is a flagship for Physics, not just for Cambridge but for the entire UK” (final year Physics).

11.2 External Examiners also often commented on the very high quality of

students’ dissertations, with examiners for more than one course suggesting undergraduates’ work was of publishable standard.22

Professional accreditation and engagement 12.1 Ten of the University’s undergraduate courses are accredited by the

appropriate Professional Regulatory and Statutory Bodies (PRSB), which enhances the learning environment through professional engagement.

12.2 In addition to formal PRSB, Departments such as Land Economy and the

Computer Laboratory also incorporate industry mentorship, advisory panels and placement working into their programmes. For example, all Engineering undergraduates are required to complete six weeks of industrial experience by the end of their third year; the final year of the undergraduate course in Manufacturing Engineering includes provision for an overseas research project; and first year Architecture students design and build a project with a local organisation.

Professional emphasis on high-quality teaching 13.1 The University places considerable value and emphasis on high-quality

teaching. Anyone appointed as an undergraduate supervisor must take the ‘Supervising Undergraduates: An Introduction’ training course run by

                                                            21 For further information, see the University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.9. 22 University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.5.  

VAL0065

  

the University’s Personal and Professional Development team. Evidence of ‘effective contributions’ to teaching is a requirement of promotion to senior academic positions.

13.2 The collegiate University has also established the Cambridge Centre for

Teaching and Learning (CCTL), which provides a focus for teaching innovation and excellence by providing training, developing networks for academics, hosting seminars and conferences, as well as a focus for the development of strategic educational priorities within collegiate Cambridge. The CCTL organises an annual Teaching Forum in which University Teaching Officers gather to share best practice and explore pedagogical approaches. The University’s Pathways in Higher Education Practice course is mandatory for all probationary University Teaching Officers.23

13.3 The University also encourages and rewards excellent and innovative

teaching through the Pilkington Prize, which distributes 12 awards each year to staff who deliver exceptional teaching. The University further facilitates innovative teaching through the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund (TLIF). Since its inception in 2010, the TLIF has provided more than £500k to projects supporting the development of innovative teaching, some of which have won national acclaim.

13.4 The University is eager to continually improve in this regard and regularly

engages with our students to learn from their experiences of teaching quality and effectiveness at Cambridge.

Resources 14.1 The collegiate University has world-leading teaching and learning

resources and we also have an ambitious programme to ensure that all facilities are fit for purpose. The Times and Sunday Times’s Good University Guide ranked Cambridge first in the UK for ‘services and facilities’ spend in 2017, and second in this category in 2016, 2015 and 2014.

14.2 Cambridge’s scores for NSS questions relating to physical and digital

resources significantly exceed the sector average. In 2016, 96% of Cambridge students agreed that ‘the library resources and services are good enough for my needs’, compared to a sector average of 87% and top quartile average of 89%; 96% agreed that ‘I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to’, compared to a sector average of 87% and top quartile average of 91%; and 92% agreed that ‘I have been

                                                            23 University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.4.

VAL0065

  

able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to’, compared to a sector average of 82% and top quartile average of 83%.24

14.3 The University Library is a legal deposit library holding more than eight

million books, journals and other documents, written in more than 2,000 languages, ranging in age from 3,000 year old manuscripts to the latest electronic journal articles. The electronic resources, which are available to students, are very heavily used, with the Library logging over 7 million downloads from eJournals each year.

14.4 The University Library’s archives, which include some unique collections, are currently being turned into a digital archive so the library’s resources will be more freely available to students, researchers and the wider public. Smaller Faculty and Departmental libraries offer students more specialised collections of books, journals, periodicals and electronic resources for particular subjects.

14.5 Many Faculties and Departments have impressive subject-specific

resources; for instance, the Veterinary Centre’s facilities include a five-theatre small-animal surgical suite, an equine surgical suite and diagnostic unit, a post-mortem unit, and one of Europe’s leading cancer therapy units. The Department of Veterinary Medicine has a laboratory that is open 24/7, as does the School of Clinical Medicine. The University is also proud of its nine specialist museums and collections, such as the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, which are used to support and enrich teaching.

14.6 Whilst the University strongly believes that, in the context of being a

residential University, face-to-face interactions such as lecturing, small-group teaching, and supervisions should remain at the heart of the Cambridge education, there is scope for the collegiate University to make greater strides in implementing technology to support and enhance the educational experience.

14.7 The University has therefore prepared a Digital Strategy for Education

(2016-2020) with specific goals, including: I. to build and maintain a shared understanding of the needs and

priorities of the collegiate University; II. to support students throughout the learning cycle;

III. to ensure quality and equity of the student experience; IV. to provide maximum effectiveness and efficiency of resource for

students, staff, and collegiate University administration; V. to enable and propagate innovation.

                                                            24 University of Cambridge TEF 2 submission, p.7.

VAL0065

  

14.8 This will include striving to provide students with access to appropriate

resources at all times: not only reading materials but access to email, Moodle, and administrative guidance. Further, the University will strive to ensure that existing and developing technologies address accessibility issues for disabled students and to make sure that existing technologies are compatible with common adjustments for disabled students. The University has also completed a pilot project on digital lecture capture. Owing to the success of this project, it has now been approved to establish a production service to offer lecture capture to selected Faculties and Departments.

Support for disadvantaged students 15.1 The principal aim of the Admissions Policy of the Colleges of the University

of Cambridge is to offer admission to students of the highest intellectual potential, irrespective of social, racial, religious and financial background.

15.2 Two further aims are:

aspiration – to encourage applications from groups that are, at present,

under-represented in Cambridge, fairness – to ensure that each applicant is individually assessed, without

partiality or bias, in accordance with the policy on Equal Opportunities.

15.3 The collegiate University is committed to the principle that no publicly-funded UK student should be deterred from applying to an undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge because of financial considerations, and that no student should have to leave because of financial difficulties.

15.4 We continue to be concerned that levels of student debt are a deterrent

for many students, and that the loss of the state higher education maintenance grant in England and rising cost of student loans present a real risk to improving levels of access. The University believes that providing maintenance support for those from low-income households is essential to mitigate that risk.

15.5 Results from the Big Cambridge Survey demonstrate that the level of student debt is a significant concern for roughly half of our first degree students: over the most recent survey period, 46% of undergraduates were worried about the amount of debt they incurred.25

                                                            25 Big Cambridge Survey Report 2016-17, p.12.

VAL0065

  

Access and outreach spend 16.1 In 2015-16, the University spent roughly £12.3m on outreach and access

activity, including financial support. This expenditure is funded by a mixture of public and private sources. The global £12.3m figure includes c.32% of our additional fee income above the basic amount, as well as non-fee sources including external sponsorship and philanthropic donations.

16.2 By way of disaggregating this total, in 2015-16 the collegiate University

spent £6.5m on financial support and approximately £3m on access activity, funded by the additional fee income. The University also expended £2.8m on access from sources of funding which are not OFFA countable.

16.3 The dedication of nearly a third of our additional fee income to access

expenditure provides a clear example of student fees being reinvested into widening participation and financial support; though some of this spend benefits a wider pool of students than those who ‘pay’ fees to Cambridge.

Impact of access and outreach spend 17.1 The collegiate University’s commitment to widening participation is

delivering a measurable impact, thereby demonstrating value for money in the context of access and social justice.

17.2 Collegiate Cambridge’s latest admissions statistics, for the 2017

admissions cycle, show the highest proportion of state-educated students in 35 years, as well as a significant increase in the proportion of UK students coming from the hardest to reach communities. Over 63% of Home students accepted in the 2017 cycle are from state schools and colleges, up from 62.5% last year.

17.3 The proportion of successful Home applicants from POLAR3 Quintile 1 (postcode areas with the lowest rates of participation in Higher Education) has also increased from 3.3% in 2016 to more than 4.5% in 2017.

17.4 Over the last decade (2007-2016), the number of Black British

undergraduates accepted by the Collegiate University has increased by 30%. Overall, the number of Home Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) acceptances has increased by 37.6%. Figures for the 2016 cycle

VAL0065

  

demonstrate that 21.8% of Home acceptances to Cambridge were from BME backgrounds: the highest it has ever been. 26

17.5 We realise that there is more work to be done in this area and we continue to develop our widening participation programmes to ensure that all those who meet our exacting admission requirements are encouraged to apply to Cambridge.

17.6 In 2016-17 the University established a strengthened research team with

a specific remit to contribute to the sector’s understanding of the issues affecting underrepresented and disadvantaged groups, as well as the measurement of outputs in terms of students’ admission to and success at leading universities.27

Retention 18.1 The University of Cambridge has one of the highest undergraduate

continuation rates for UK-domiciled full-time first degree students of any UK higher education institution (currently 98.5% compared to 91.4% for the sector). This is in part a product of high contact hours and very small contact groups, the pastoral care provided by our Colleges and the support facilities available, but is also assisted by the extensive financial support that we offer to our students. Our research shows little significant variation between social groups in terms of likelihood of completion.28

18.2 As noted in Cambridge’s TEF Year Two statement of findings, “Very high

proportions of students from all backgrounds continue with their studies, notably exceeding the provider’s benchmark.”

Bursary Scheme 19.1 As discussed above, the question of value for money impacts different

students in different ways. The University considers that maintenance support plays a vital role in enabling disadvantaged students to obtain value for money in their degree. Students who cannot participate fully in their degree course (for example, if they have to undertake long hours of paid work) and/or who cannot afford to complete their studies, are not able to get the most out of their education. At Cambridge, students are expected not to take on paid employment during term-time, in order to

                                                            26 At the time of writing, we are still collating the full data for BME acceptances for 2017 entry. 27 University of Cambridge OFFA Access Agreement 2018-19, p.22. 28 University of Cambridge OFFA Access Agreement 2018-19, p.4. 

VAL0065

  

focus on their education. It is crucial that the financial resources are available to enable them to do this.

19.2 The Cambridge Bursary Scheme (CBS) is a vital part of the collegiate University’s drive to recruit and retain the best and brightest Home/EU undergraduates regardless of background or financial situation. The CBS is funded by private and public sources, including tuition fee income. In that sense, it is another example of some of the fee income the collegiate University receives being directly reinvested in students from low income backgrounds.

19.3 In 2016-17, the collegiate University spent approximately £7.9m on

bursaries under the CBS. CBS support is offered to undergraduates from the UK or EU with a household income of less than £42,650. In 2016-17, 2,642 bursaries were awarded, of which 1,743 were at the maximum amount of £3,500, awarded to students whose household income is less than £25,000 per year (1,199 of these were to students whose household income is less than £16,000 per annum).

19.4 The University takes full account of student feedback in the formulation of

the present scheme. In January 2015, we received 856 responses from bursary recipients (40% of the total) to a survey of attitudes towards bursary provision both generally and at the University of Cambridge. Of those students from low-income backgrounds (as defined by eligibility for Free School Meals whilst in secondary school), 20.6% said that they would not have gone to university if bursaries had been unavailable; 43.1% that the bursary offered was a deciding or very important factor in their institution choice; and 44.1% that without a bursary they could not continue their studies.29

19.5 In 2016 a further survey conducted by CUSU showed that 53.5% of

bursary recipients regarded the availability of financial support as very important, or that they would not have attended university without it. The latest Big Cambridge Survey found that 70% of respondents with a bursary felt the University was successful in ensuring that financial limitations did not stand in the way of someone’s academic success.30 Every College Students’ Union Access Officer has called for the bursary scheme to be retained at current levels as a minimum.

19.6 Bursaries, which take the form of grants that do not have to be paid back,

are especially important in the context of the conversion of maintenance grants to maintenance loans, as this switch adds considerably to the debt

                                                            29 OFFA Agreement 2018‐19, p.15.  30 Cambridge Big Survey Report 2016‐17, p.10. 

VAL0065

  

burden experienced by those from the lowest income households. A related advantage is that bursaries do not act as a disincentive to postgraduate study by adding to students’ cumulative debt.

Vice-Chancellor pay 20.1 The current Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge was hired after

a global search. The Vice-Chancellor’s salary of £365,000 per annum is set by the University’s Remuneration Committee and is determined in part by careful analysis of published data about Vice-Chancellors’ and Presidents’ pay in the UK and internationally. In a global market, it is essential that the salary is globally competitive.

20.2 The Vice-Chancellor’s duties include not only ensuring the excellence of

our education and world-leading research, but also the management of a complex organisation with a turnover of more than £1 billion, more than 11,000 staff, nearly 19,000 students and ambitions for capital expenditure which – if all projects were to be taken forward – would require more than £4 billion over the next 15-20 years. The Vice-Chancellor is also expected to support vital fundraising objectives that enable ongoing investment in (and subsidy of) undergraduate education and financial support for our students.

The role of the Office for Students (OfS)

20.3 The University has emphasised the importance of the OfS adopting a risk-based approach to regulation and we would be concerned if low-risk Universities were required to subsidise the emergence and regulation of higher-risk providers. This would not be the best use of a high-performing University’s resources, particularly when these could instead be invested in the University’s undergraduate provision. In the context of value for money it will be important for the OfS to maintain a robust baseline on the quality, good governance and financial sustainability of institutions.

20.4 Given the OfS’s focus on the student interest, it will be important for the

regulator to explore how students themselves are partners in their education, rather than pure consumers: more value can be extracted from a University education if the relationship between education provider and student is not simply understood as transactional.

20.5 Consideration should also be given to how postgraduates will fit into the

new regulatory framework with a view to encouraging postgraduate enrolment and retention and enabling students at all levels to maximise the ‘value’ they derive from higher education.

VAL0065

  

Conclusions Costs of undergraduate education 21.1 At Cambridge, Home undergraduate fees meet only half the cost (on

average) of undergraduate education. The collegiate University subsidizes the remainder of the cost from its own resources.

21.2 This is a conscious decision to invest in our students and means that recruitment is not affected by the fee status of students. Rather, this approach gives us the autonomy to recruit the brightest and best regardless of background or fee status.

21.3 Crucially, the collegiate University’s commitment to enabling the access and participation of the brightest and best, regardless of financial status/household income, is underpinned by our bursary support.

21.4 The cost of an undergraduate education at Cambridge means we do not funnel Home undergraduate fees into any other activity: there is no surplus from these tuition fees, and therefore no subsidy of any other activity, apart from widening participation and bursary support.

21.5 In terms of higher education funding, the University is concerned primarily to ensure the full funding of education. Universities need a sound financial footing in order to be able to meet costs which allow us to realise value.

21.6 In the present funding context, the University does not support any increase in the tuition fee above that which would allow the value of the fee to be maintained.

21.7 Freezing the tuition fee would lead to the erosion of its value over time, thereby preventing us from delivering excellent education.

Value of higher education 21.8 Value is complex and it cannot be reduced merely to economic factors

(such as graduate earnings): a. Whilst costs are objective, value is subjective, so it is vital that

students’ views on the different aspects of the value of their education are considered.

b. Students’ perceptions of value cannot be easily measured in metrics that are concerned solely with salary data.

VAL0065

  

c. Students also value the life skills they learn at university, the opportunity to get involved in student societies and charitable work, the confidence they develop and the cultivation of skills which lead to greater employability in careers that are intellectually challenging and have a wider social benefit.

21.9 Being able to meet the costs of our undergraduate education allows us to deliver real value in education and the student experience. In College-arranged supervisions, a small number of students meet with a subject-specialist teacher for an in-depth discussion of a particular topic. This model enables high levels of contact time, teaching that can be tailored to individual students’ interests and opportunities for frequent formative feedback.

21.10 Excellent teaching by our academic staff – many of whom are also actively engaged in research - is rewarded at Cambridge as part of professional practice and development.

21.11 Higher education also engenders ‘value’ for society across a range of fields and professions, including health, medicine, social work, teaching and education, entrepreneurship and research and industry. This broader value is implicit in the write-off charge, i.e. the taxpayer subsidy of undergraduate education.

21.12 Higher education also delivers value for universities themselves, by operating as a pipeline for students who may be inspired by their engagement with academics and research-led teaching to progress to postgraduate work and become teachers, researchers and world-leading experts in their field. Regular student feedback also helps universities to refresh their undergraduate teaching programmes.

21.13 In addition, at the University of Cambridge, our students also confer immense value in that they enable us to realise our charitable mission “to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.”

Student debt and maintenance support

21.14 The University of Cambridge is committed to ensuring that no publicly-funded UK student should be deterred from applying to an undergraduate course at Cambridge because of financial considerations, and that no such student should have to leave because of financial difficulties.

VAL0065

  

21.15 Maintenance support is vital in enabling students to access and maximise value in their education, as it sustains students’ retention/progression and allows them to make the most of their higher education.

21.16 The University does have concerns that levels of student debt, as well as the removal of maintenance grants, presents a deterrent for prospective students and/or complicates their ability to participate fully in the student experience. It also leads to unfairness further down the line, as debt burdens accrue.

21.17 In order to ensure that the system protects and facilitates fair access to, and participation in, higher education in England, the Government should consider looking at providing targeted maintenance grants to those most in need of additional financial support.

21.18 In 2016/17, collegiate Cambridge spent approximately £7.9m on bursaries to students from low-income backgrounds. The University takes full account of student feedback in the formulation of the present bursary scheme. Our survey returns demonstrate that a substantial proportion of bursary recipients considered the bursary either a deciding or very important factor in their institution choice, and/or felt that without a bursary they could not continue their studies or could not obtain the full benefit of the Cambridge education experience.

21.19 The University strongly believes that the Cambridge Bursary Scheme is an essential component not only of widening access but also of enabling students with less means to fully participate in the student experience. This too is an important aspect of social mobility and maximising value for money.

October 2017

VAL0039

Written Evidence submitted by the University of Central

Lancashire 1. About the University of Central Lancashire

1.1 The University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) is Lancashire’s largest provider

of graduate level qualifications.

1.2 UCLan have a considerable regional footprint, with campuses in; Preston, Burnley and Whitehaven and with specialist Dental Education Centres in Blackpool, Accrington, Morecambe and Carlisle. Further to this, the University has educated one in every two students at HEIs in Lancashire, while 1% of all the county’s residents are enrolled in study at UCLan at any given time.

1.3 UCLan graduates in 2013/14 are expected to contribute an annual average of £24m to the North West and £15m to the Lancashire economy over their working lives.

1.4 Internationally, UCLan has academic partners in all regions of the globe and we have a thriving campus in Cyprus, which delivers UCLan programmes and original research within an UCLan environment and culture.

1.5 We are pioneering new models of education and working with key players across the sector and industry to provide practical solutions to benefit the UK economy. Our new models will provide graduates with the skills and qualifications that employers want, whilst providing excellent value for money for students.

1.6 We are committed to supporting regional economic productivity growth and widening participation in HE by opening up increased opportunities for employability. UCLan hope to be able to provide businesses greater access to degree level apprentices and employable, ‘work-ready’ graduates.

1.7 There are significant challenges facing the education sector and therefore this

inquiry is incredibly timely. We therefore welcome the opportunity to respond and would very much like to provide further details on the points outlined below by giving evidence to the Committee. For any further information please contact Louis Reynolds on Louis@gkstrategy.com.

VAL0039

2. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

2.1 At UCLan, we believe the use of destination data to set fee levels is an overly simplistic tool to deal with the complex and ever-changing graduate employment landscape.

2.2 We are proud to train the future skilled workforce in our region and fully support the Government’s drive to promote economic growth and prosperity outside of London. We play a critical role in providing the education and skills business require to expand and are committed to encouraging students to pursue the career of their choice. We are delighted that 95% of our graduates remain in Lancashire to work in the businesses that will drive economic success in our region.

2.3 We have a long history of training the future entrepreneurs and wealth creators of the region. Destination data fails to appropriately appreciate the importance that these people play in driving economic growth and therefore using this data in isolation would penalise universities that encourage their graduates to set up successful businesses.

2.4 We welcome the fact that graduate destination data considers regional variation, however we have serious concerns that the data is not broken down sub-regionally. Across a specific region there is significant difference in the graduate landscape, particularly between the large metropolitan cities and the small towns. Any decision to link fees to graduate destination data must consider these difference and not create crude categorisations.

2.5 For example, the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data includes Manchester within the North West region. Whilst this makes sense from a geographic angle, the socio-economic makeup of Manchester and Preston, the home of our lead campus, is significantly different. There exist significant discrepancies between earnings and the cost of living between the two cities.

2.6 If destination data was used as a significant measure of success for universities it would place a perverse incentive on recruiting students from well off backgrounds and regions in the UK. These students have a greater level of flexibility to move for work and can secure higher paid work at home after graduating.

3. Social Justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students

3.1 UCLan are proud to be a widening participation university. We encourage disadvantaged students to pursue higher education qualifications and

VAL0039

emphasise local recruitment to meet the skill demand of our region’s businesses.

3.2 45.1% of UCLan students come from lower socio-economic groups, and we are ranked 22nd of 151 Universities for students from low participation neighbourhoods. We firmly believe that all able students, regardless of their background, should be able to complete higher education studies.

3.3 Despite our encouraging statistics we are concerned that the current proposals

and emphasis included within the Industrial Strategy place too high a importance on the role of A and T Levels and ignore other routes to higher education, for example through FE colleges and BTEC’s.

3.4 We would encourage greater flexibility in education pathways and hope the

Government will take steps to realise this ambition. Historically, the UK has promoted a linear style of education that has discouraged disadvantaged students and is unable to respond quickly to the ever changing needs of the UK economy. Therefore, there is room for greater recognition and support for alternative and more flexible routes into HE and skilled employment.

4. Quality and effectiveness of teaching

4.1 UCLan believes that students should be able to experience teaching that provides the range of skills, both academic and practical, that will enhance their opportunities for employment. The key to this vision is creating a system that is far less rigid and allows students to benefit from the advantages of both the world-class HE and Further Education (FE) that the UK has to offer.

4.2 The modern British education system must allow businesses to access highly skilled graduates, whilst providing better value for money for students. At UCLan, we are leading the way in exploring new education models that will provide a highly skilled workforce fit for the needs of both the regional and national economies.

4.3 We are preparing to launch a Flexible Degree Apprenticeship Pilot Programme. This tailored post-16 education allows students to undertake one or two years of full-time undergraduate study before transitioning to a degree apprenticeship at a local SME, where they will complete their study whilst working. This training route will be funded through newly available Apprenticeship Levy funding. This model will draw upon industry experts to teach technical education and skills to drive up standards, whilst improving basic maths, English and digital literacy.

VAL0039

4.4 The Programme will provide flexibility for a full-time student to become employed by a company and start earning a salary after completing the first or second year of their degree. They will switch from studying a degree, to completing a degree apprenticeship. This allows students to immediately pursue their chosen career, whilst simultaneously encouraging continued academic training. Furthermore, it will improve the quality of careers advice and guidance being offered to students and will provide them with high quality and substantive work experience.

4.5 We are also planning to pilot a new hybrid HE/FE model that will provide graduates with the practical, vocational skills that employer’s demand. This model is designed in response to both national (HECSU/AGR)1 and north-west regional (LEP) research2 that highlights concerns from employers regarding the work-readiness of graduates.

4.6 UCLan’s hybrid model will ensure that students graduate with both an undergraduate degree and a complementary level 3 vocational qualification. Students will divide their time between completing their HE degree, whilst putting into practice what they have learned pursuing a vocational course at a local FE college. This will encourage entrepreneurship within our graduates, by upskilling them in the basic skills necessary to become growth generators.

4.7 This will provide them with the ‘work-ready’ skills employers seek, whilst also offering excellent value for money. We believe that this will further open the market to those from lower income backgrounds who are concerned about the debt accrued during university study and their employability upon graduation.

4.8 Hybrid models of education, which combine rigorous undergraduate academic study with complementary, practical FE skills, are common across Europe. It is particularly successful in Germany and Scandinavia, delivered through an FE/HE partnership and designed collaboratively with industry.

4.9 Both of our innovative models of education could help address the relative

underperformance in business productivity and the lower than average skill levels across Lancashire that were identified in the Lancashire LEP Skills Strategic Plan.

5. Summary of Recommendations

5.1 The Government should refrain from using LEO data in its current form as a key indicator of graduate success.

                                                            1 https://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/documents/GMT_29.7.16.pdf 2 http://www.lancashirelep.co.uk/lep-priorities/skills-employment/evidence-base.aspx  

VAL0039

5.2 The Government should continue to promote non-traditional routes to, and

methods of teaching, HE. Providing the regulatory and funding structures that encourage flexibility in the provision of post-16 education. This will allow teaching innovation and greater collaboration between HE, FE and training providers.

5.3 The Government should encourage and support pilot programmes for new forms of delivery in the HE and FE markets.

5.4 The Government should engage more with those that are attempting to create innovative, increasingly flexible and less linear pathways in post-16 education provision, in order to harness the excellent research and development that is already being undertaken.

October 2017

VAL0028

Written Evidence submitted by the University of East

Anglia Introduction 1 The University of East Anglia (UEA) is a research-intensive university

based on an attractive campus in Norwich. The University hosts almost 17,000 students across a broad range of programmes in faculties of arts and humanities, medicine and health, science and social sciences.

2 UEA has a strong track record in both research and teaching excellence. In research, UEA is ranked =10th in the UK for quality of research outputs1 and 13th in the UK for research citations.2 UEA was ranked fourth of all English mainstream universities3 in the National Student Survey (NSS) for overall student satisfaction in 2017 and is the only English university to have been ranked in the top 5 for student satisfaction in every year since the start of the NSS in 2005. In the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), UEA was awarded a ‘Gold’ rating.

3 A distinctive feature of UEA’s approach to student education over the past 10 years has been the development of a dual career track for academic staff who are appointed to either a teaching and research (ATR) or a teaching and scholarship (ATS) post. Both categories are required to engage with teaching and for ATS staff teaching represents the vast majority of their professional output. The ATS and ATR career tracks offer equivalent opportunities for progression, reflecting the equality of status and parity of esteem associated with both research and teaching at UEA. All four of UEA’s faculties have ATS staff including at professorial level.

Value for money 4 The evidence strongly suggests that higher education represents good

value for money for both students and the taxpayer, reflected in international data across the OECD.4 In the UK, despite a marked expansion in participation, there remains a significant graduate premium in earnings. However, it is vital that the value of higher education is not determined by earnings alone. Research for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013) demonstrates the wide range of benefits for individuals and for society from increased participation in higher education. Graduates not only earn more, but are healthier, happier, less likely to commit crime and are, for example, more likely to contribute to society through civic engagement and volunteering.5

1 Research Excellence Framework, 2014. 2 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2017. 3 English mainstream universities are defined as included in either the Complete Guide or the Guardian, Non-specialist and in England.’ 4 OECD (2017) Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD. 5 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (2013) The Benefits of Higher Education Participation for Individuals and Society. BIS Research Paper No. 146. London: BIS.

VAL0028

Graduate outcomes and destination data in understanding value for money 5 For graduate outcomes, there has been a heavy reliance on data from the

Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey of graduates six months after graduating. The survey records the proportion of students in a positive graduate outcome, deemed to be a ‘graduate-level’ job or further (postgraduate) study. This measure is used for the ‘highly skilled employment’ metric in the TEF. The sixth-month survey point has been problematic because some graduates make an active choice to take some time after their studies (i.e. a ‘gap year’ after their university degree course) to consider which kind of career they wish to pursue. The planned move of the DLHE survey from six months after graduating to 15 months is therefore to be welcomed.

6 The Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data presents information

about graduate earnings over a longer period after graduating. In data quality terms, this is a robust system which links individual graduates’ earnings with the course and institution they studied at. In the new arrangements for the TEF, LEO data will be used as a supplementary metric to inform the TEF Panel’s consideration of Provider Submissions. The two metrics to be produced are: the proportion of graduates in sustained employment or further study three years after graduation; and the proportion of graduates in sustained employment earning over the median salary for 25-29 year olds or in further study. There are two concerns about the use of such data.

7 The first concern relates to long lag times. The figures relating to earnings in financial year 2015/16 will be for graduates who completed their studies in 2015 at the latest, and so will have entered their university in 2012/13 or 2011/12 – depending on whether they were on a three-year or four year programme. The quality of teaching and employability support may develop considerably over a six or seven year period such that the most recent graduate outcomes data would relate to students who entered a university is quite different times and with potentially quite different levels of support.

8 Across the HE sector, universities have been making considerable strides

in improving support for student employability. UEA has significantly increased its investment in supporting student employability since 2012 by investing approximately £600,000 per year in additional staff and £1.4m in a new Careers Centre, alongside a new online careers capability providing a significantly enhanced set of resources and opportunities for students. UEA is now seeing significantly improved student engagement with careers services and engagement of staff from across the University. Our DLHE graduate prospects figure has improved by almost 9 percentage points over the past four years as a result. However, other factors can determine a student’s employability outcomes beyond the control of the University, including students’ residential preferences and local labour market conditions.

VAL0028

9 A second concern relates to the risk of measuring the value for money of higher education solely in terms of financial earnings. There is widespread evidence that graduates benefit from their degrees in ways other than just earnings (health; happiness; quality of life). Research has showed, for example, that a university education contributes to greater life satisfaction, independent of income (which was measured as 66% for A-level students but 77% for those with degree level education).6

10 Because of these concerns about LEO data and the emphasis on graduate

earnings, would recommend retaining the employment metric as a core metric in the TEF, but making the ‘highly skilled employment’ metric a contextual, supplementary metric alongside the LEO data instead of a core metric.

11 We consider that non-continuation and completion (i.e. the chances of

progressing beyond the first year and of completing the course) are suitable outcome measures as core metrics in the TEF. We also consider ‘good honours’ (the proportion of students graduating with a First or Upper Second class degree) to be a legitimate measure of a successful graduate outcome. The Minister’s recent emphasis on grade inflation is unfortunate, and does not seem to recognize the huge efforts that have been underway over the last 10 years to improve learning and teaching in universities, often stimulated by national government and sector-wide initiatives.7

12 Consider UEA as an example. At UEA, a major strategic initiative was

launched in 2008/09 to strengthen our teaching through increasing academic staffing levels. Investment in additional academic staff between 2008/09 and 2013/14 markedly improved UEA’s Student:Staff Ratio (SSR) SSR from 18:1 to 13.7:1. While student numbers increased by 24% over the period 2007/08 to 2013/14, academic staffing increased much more markedly by 400 FTE − a 64% increase on 2007/08 staffing levels. This significant additional investment amounts to over £19m per annum for academic staffing costs, equating to over £1,400 per student. Increasing the numbers of academic staff has had multiple benefits for students: improved ratios allow for swifter turnaround on assessment and feedback; the time available for advisees has increased; and the range of expertise feeding into course development has expanded. We have also invested significantly in physical infrastructure and learning resources which has helped support students’ academic achievement. We are pleased to see that the proportion of students achieving ‘good honours’ has improved as a result of this investment. However, rather than conceptualising improved student attainment as a positive and successful

6 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (2013) The Benefits of Higher Education Participation for Individuals and Society. BIS Research Paper No. 146. London: BIS. p.34. 7 Examples of such initiatives include: the Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; the Higher Education Academy (HEA); the Centres of Excellence in Learning & Teaching; the National Teaching Fellowships scheme; the UK Professional Standards Framework; HEA Fellowships)

VAL0028

graduate outcome, the emphasis in the new TEF will be to assume grade inflation and a loss of ‘rigor and stretch’.

13 UEA’s good honours performance has also been characterised by disproportionate improvements among disadvantaged groups of students. The gap between mature students and those admitted aged under 21 achieving good honours has narrowed from 15.2 percentage points in 2011/12 to 6.1 percentage points in 2015/16. The gap between disabled students and those with no disability has also narrowed significantly from 10.0 percentage points in 2011/12 to just 2.1 percentage points in 2015/16. The gap between BME students and white students has narrowed from 28.6 percentage points in 2011/12 to 17.7 percentage points in 2015/16. Perhaps most notably, the gap between Widening Participation (WP) students from Polar 1 postcodes compared to non-WP students from Polar 2 to 5 areas has been almost eradicated. In 2011/12, the gap was 10.6 percentage points and by 2015/16 it had narrowed to just 1.5 percentage points.

14 We recommend the Office for Students carry out a more in-depth analysis of the reasons behind the sector-wide increases in Firsts and Upper Second Class degrees, and give explicit consideration to where the improvements have been as a result of factors such as improved staffing and educational provision and improved support and performance among disadvantaged groups of students.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 15 Although the current student fees and financing regime has come under

increasing public and political scrutiny over recent months, it is generally well recognized that one of the key benefits of the current regime is the amount of resource now directed to supporting students from widening participation backgrounds to study for a higher education degree and to succeed.

16 UEA continues to be committed to widening participation to high-quality higher education and takes a full student lifecycle approach to enable motivated and able students from under-represented groups, particularly from the East Anglian region but also elsewhere, to gain the advantages of higher education irrespective of background. UEA was recently ranked third in the high-tariff university access rankings produced by Reform8 and in the recent Times Good University ranking for 2018, UEA had the highest proportion of students from low participation areas of any university ranked in the top 20.

17 Widening participation activity involves outreach work to support access to

university, but also putting measures in place to support success and progression among widening participation students. Over many years, UEA has been able to build up a strong partnership with local schools in

8 Sundorph, E., Vasilev, D. and Coiffait, L. (2017) Joining the Elite: How Top Universities Can Enhance Social Mobility. London: Reform (September 2017).

VAL0028

low participation areas to support attainment and raise aspirations among school children and to work to overcome barriers to participation in higher education.

18 Recently, UEA helped lead the production of the Network of East Anglian

Collaborative Outreach (NEACO) proposal to HEFCE’s National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP) in partnership with Cambridge University, Anglia Ruskin University, Norwich University of the Arts and University of Suffolk. This is a major project (over £9m) involving more than 40 staff in total and including a team of new Higher Education Champions placed in schools and colleges across East Anglia to help reduce the participation gaps which have been identified by HEFCE.

19 The Social Mobility Index identifies parts of East Anglia as among the

‘worst’ performing in England. Ipswich, East Cambridgeshire and most of Norfolk are among the very worst performing areas in school social mobility indicators and of the fifty worst local authority districts, seven social mobility cold-spots are in Norfolk, three in Suffolk and one in Cambridgeshire9.

20 HEFCE identified ‘Gap Areas’ within the region where the proportion of

young people who progress to higher education is significantly below what might be expected on the basis of GSCE attainment.10 The NEACO project will address these gaps by raising aspiration and attainment. However, currently, the initiative is only funded for two years, despite such interventions requiring a much longer-term approach to support. We would, therefore, recommend an extension of the commitment to the NCOP Programme, through the Office for Students, beyond the current 2 years of funding.

21 Preliminary data for the 2017 entry round suggests that UEA has

increased its proportion of students from widening participation backgrounds (Polar 1 areas). However, in nursing, the changes to the student finance system for nursing students, and the shift from bursaries to student loans, has significantly affected the proportion of mature students choosing to study for a degree with us and we have seen a marked decline this year. We therefore call for urgent review of the impact of the changes to the finance system for nursing students because of these observed detrimental effects upon widening participation and social mobility.

Senior management pay in universities 22 Vice Chancellors’ and senior management pay in universities has attracted

a good deal of public comment and criticism during 2017. At UEA, it is recognised that there is a legitimate public interest in senior staff pay and a need for institutions to be transparent and accountable.

9 Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2016) Social Mobility Index, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-index 10 Higher Education Funding Council for England [HEFCE] (2016) National Collaborative Outreach Programme: Invitation to Submit Proposals for Funding. London: HEFCE.

VAL0028

23 At UEA, the pay of the eight members of the University’s Executive Team,

including the Vice Chancellor, is determined by a Senior Officers’ Remuneration Committee. This Committee is made up of independent members of the University’s Council – its governing body − and the Vice Chancellor. However, the Vice Chancellor leaves the room and does not take part in that part of the meeting that considers his own pay.

24 The salary for UEA’s Vice Chancellor is below the median for the sector

nationally although the University is ranked in the Top 20 in all three main league tables. He has responsibility for around 20,000 staff and students and runs a multi-million pound organisation that makes a significant contribution (estimated at £800m per year) to the regional economy and beyond.

25 We would not accept that the introduction of £9,000 student tuition fees

in 2012 is causally linked to increasing senior management pay, as has been claimed in the press. A more significant reform, in terms of increasing the competitiveness of the environment the university operates in, has been the removal of student number controls, which has led to much more acute competition for students. Universities like UEA now have to operate in an acutely competitive environment. It is also our experience that university senior managers, as with senior academics generally, work in highly international labour markets, do move between countries and are regularly approached by overseas recruiters.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 26 The TEF has helped improve the focus on teaching in higher education and

is stimulating considerable analysis of what constitutes success.11 At UEA, all academic departments have undergone a review in the last year to help ensure adequate strategies and plans are in place to support teaching excellence and student employability. We are currently considering the most appropriate annual planning framework to ensure focused and purposeful improvement work in assessment and feedback, embedding employability in the curriculum, addressing attainment gaps, teaching practice development, and student involvement in enhancement and quality management.

27 We are disappointed in the Minister’s decision to halve the weighting given

to NSS scores on teaching quality, academic support and assessment and feedback in the TEF. This weakens the student voice in the TEF and also diminishes what are, although not perfect, actually the best sources of data on teaching quality that we have. Compared to TEF2, the rules for TEF3 represent a weakening of the real link to teaching excellence. We would also encourage consideration of including the NSS student voice theme questions (questions 23 to 25) as an additional TEF metric. This would strengthen universities’ responsiveness to their students.

11 See, for example, Higher Education Policy Institute (2017) Going for Gold: Lessons from the TEF Provider Submissions. London: HEPI.

VAL0028

The role of the Office for Students 28 The establishment of the new Office for Students (OfS) will represent a

significant change to the governance and regulation of the higher education sector in England. We expect that the new body will strengthen the protection of the student interest in the system.

29 We remain concerned about the separation of the teaching and research components of higher education governance. It would have been helpful to the sector if the units of assessment in the Research Excellence Framework and TEF subject areas were fully aligned, for example.

30 This memorandum of evidence was compiled by Professor Neil Ward,

Deputy Vice Chancellor, on behalf of UEA. October 2017

VAL0064 Written evidence submitted by the University of

Hertfordshire 1. Introduction

1.1 At the University of Hertfordshire, our core purpose is to transform our students’ lives through a high quality, distinctive education which prepares them for work and society in a global community. We offer our students a challenging, inclusive learning environment which engages them with the workplace to enhance their career aspirations and entrepreneurial spirit, conferring high employability. We have a diverse student body, with 50% BME students and a large proportion of commuting students. We estimate that over 40% of our students are the first in their family to attend university. Our students achieve excellent outcomes, with over 96% in jobs or further study within six months of graduating. Recent analysis of the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data suggests that those graduates see significant benefits to their earnings five years after leaving us.

1.2 However, we strongly believe that the value of a university education cannot

only be measured by the economic outcome for the student involved. The University of Hertfordshire strives to support all our students to achieve their aims and ambitions. It must be acknowledged, that while all students are seeking to graduate, they are not all motivated by a financial reward. To assess value for money, we must understand the motivations of the individual students. Nurses, teachers, students of the creative arts, to name just a few, are not expecting high financial rewards, but it is important for them, and for society, that they receive an excellent university education. We hope that the committee will take the opportunity to bring more depth and reflection to the public debate on the value of higher education than it has received in recent months. We welcome the development of metrics measuring graduate outcomes but we remain aware that they can never tell the whole story of student aims and achievement.

1.3 Although this inquiry is focused on the value for money for individual students,

we also believe that it is important to emphasise the value of universities to their local areas, to the economy and to the country as a whole. The latest report on the economic impact of universities, commissioned by Universities UK estimates that universities make a substantial contribution to UK GDP, equivalent to £52.9 billion gross value added.1 The University of Hertfordshire’s gross value added in 2011 was estimated to be £150 million, with the University contributing over £1 billion to the county’s economy, and attributable for nearly 5,000 jobs in Hertfordshire.

2. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

2.1 In 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ own data found that university graduates earn substantially more than non-graduates over a

                                                       1 Oxford Economics (2017), The Economic Impact of Universities 2014-15

VAL0064 lifetime, even with the costs of tuition fees, student loans and taxes on earnings are taken into account. The report ‘The Benefits of Higher Education Participation for Individuals and Society’ found that a lifetime benefit of £252,000 for women and £168,000 for men.2 While there are obviously varying outcomes for students, depending on the course they study, the university they attend, the career they choose and where they choose to live, it is important not to disregard the positive nature of this overall figure, which reflects positive outcomes across the sector. It is also important to note that businesses still see a need for highly-skilled employees, with a skills shortfall predicted in coming years which higher education can help to address3.

2.2 For business-facing universities such as the University of Hertfordshire the

destination data gives a strong indication of the value for money for students of studying for a degree. The most recent Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey found that 96.1 per cent of our graduates were in employment or further study within six months of graduating. The LEO data takes a longer-term look at graduate pay, and while there is still much analysis of the data to be carried out, we were interested in analysis by The Economist who have tried to establish the ‘added-value’ that particular universities bring to their students. Their approach suggests that a University of Hertfordshire graduate earns an average of £1,100 more per annum than would otherwise be expected based on their socio-economic background and prior educational attainment.4 This suggests substantial real-world improvements to people’s lives.

2.3 There are obvious limits to the DLHE as it currently stands, but the move in

future iterations of the DLHE to measure employment at 18 months should provide more rigorous information with which to track student outcomes which we welcome. We also think it is important to note that self-employment is not captured in the DLHE, and that this is also hard to pick up in LEO. As a University, we are keen to encourage students and graduates to set up their own businesses. The annual Flare competition supports, and rewards, students and alumni to set up their own businesses, and, among many other support schemes, the University also hosts an Enterprise Incubation Centre, supporting graduates who wish to build their own business. Given the drive and enthusiasm of these graduates who will be essential to build the future economy, it is unfortunate that they are unlikely to be captured in destination data, as are those who choose to follow a less-conventional career path, such as working freelance within the creative arts, even as we know that these ‘patchwork’ careers may be likely to become more common.

2.4 At the University of Hertfordshire we are proud that we are ‘transforming lives’

and we believe that both the data on graduate outcomes, and the personal stories of our students, demonstrate that we are successful. The recent public conversation around the value of a university education has included much

                                                       2 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013), The Benefits of Higher Education Participation for Individuals and Society 3 Universities UK (2015), Supply and Demand for higher-level skills 4 The Economist (12 August 2017) ‘Which British universities do most to boost graduate salaries?’ https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21726100-our-new-guide-answers-which-british-universities-do-most-boost-graduate-salaries  

VAL0064 cynical comment on degrees from ‘newer’ universities, with little attempt made to engage with the reality of the students’ programmes of study, their lives and their achievements. The biggest danger that we can see from this debate is that it discredits students’ hard-won degrees and undermines them just as they are taking their steps into the workplace and building their careers. We are proud of our achievements on graduate outcomes, but we also think that it is important to note that on some measures of university achievement there can be very small differences between outcomes according to the measures and yet these small percentage differences in NSS and DLHE will be vastly exaggerated within league tables, overshadow both nuance and student achievement and indicating greater variation than you actually find in a very high-performing sector. Talking down universities does most damage to the students and graduates of that institution. They have worked hard for degrees that have intellectual standing and rigour. Their achievements should be rewarded and recognised, not undermined.

3. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students

3.1 There is a commitment across the higher education sector to improve social mobility, with every institution having to set out their plans in an access agreement with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). However, it should be noted that institutions such as the University of Hertfordshire are particularly committed to widening participation and act as the major agents of social change. We have a diverse student intake, with approximately half of our students coming from a BME background, and over forty per cent of our students the first in their family to attend university. We support these students from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education and on to the opportunities that our excellent student outcomes open up for them. We take issue with the narrative that students are being encouraged to attend less-prestigious institutions which will get them into debt without benefit, and would emphasise that social mobility on a large scale is about steps for all not just leaps for a chosen few.

3.2 The University of Hertfordshire works hard to support students when they

reach university. The higher education sector recognises that there is still work to be done in areas such as the BME attainment gap and we are actively working on these issues. At the University of Hertfordshire our BME Success Project Working Group has focused on improving BME attainment, and has seen significant improvements since the project began. We know that our BME alumni have a lower than sector average unemployment rate, in part due to schemes such as BME work shadowing, and we are part of a HEFCE-funded consortium of higher education institutions who are continuing work to narrow the BME attainment gap.

3.3 Outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and for students

with disabilities, are strong and reflect the support that they receive at the University of Hertfordshire. Our ‘Herts Success’ initiative supported 1,600 eligible students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The programme had a significant impact on continuation rates among eligible students, with a 43 per cent decrease in withdrawals between 2013/14 and 2014/15. And in 2015/16, 97.3 per cent of Herts Success graduates were in employment or

VAL0064 further study, actually outperforming the already high rate achieved by graduates across the university. Meanwhile, our Student Wellbeing team supports students with disabilities or mental health issues, often providing continuity in mental health that might not otherwise be available outside the university setting. And this support works, we know that our disabled students are as likely to gain a good degree as their non-disabled peers (with 65 per cent of both groups likely to get a good degree in 2014/15).

3.4 Universities do not operate in a vacuum, and the University of Hertfordshire

is committed to outreach in our local area. We work with over 600 local schools and colleges and sponsor two University Technical Colleges. We are committed to building links and routes between further and higher education. We have a vibrant consortium partnership with four Hertfordshire Further Education Colleges, building support and links between the university and FE colleges in the surrounding area. Since the consortium was founded in 2000 around 14,500 students have progressed from the consortium to the University. In 2014/15, over 450 of our graduating students had progressed to the University from the FE consortium.

4. Quality and effectiveness of teaching

4.1 The international reputation of UK higher education is well-deserved, and is based on excellence in both teaching and research. The perception of quality is based in reality, with the excellent outcomes attained by graduates not an accident, but a result of the increased focus on teaching and support. And it is worth noting that while the higher education sector continues to strive for improvement, the current sector average of 85 per cent satisfaction with ‘the teaching on my course’ among students is not unimpressive and would be welcomed in many businesses.5

4.2 There has been much work to improve the quality of teaching, even before

the recent introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework. It has become more common for universities to have formal promotion routes through both teaching and research, as we do at the University of Hertfordshire. Good teachers can be rewarded for their teaching in the same way that good researchers can be rewarded for their research. The HEPI Student Experience survey tells us that students value teaching qualifications, and we support our lecturers to achieve these qualifications if they do not have them already. Over fifty per cent of lecturers at the University of Hertfordshire hold a teaching qualification, and by 2018 we are aiming for 85 per cent of our staff to hold a teaching qualification or form of recognition such as HEA fellowship.

4.3 All universities have to meet high standards when they undergo the HE

Review by the Quality Assurance Agency, the minimum necessary standard set as eligibility for the Teaching Excellence Framework. In the University of Hertfordshire’s last review we were one of only two universities to receive no recommendations, a significant achievement that highlights the quality of the education we deliver.

                                                       5 HEFCE (2017) National Student Survey

VAL0064 4.4 Business-facing universities such as the University of Hertfordshire ensure

that their teaching is informed by active partnership with business and the professions. Every new programme validation is shaped with input from the relevant businesses and professional partners, and every one of our Schools works with an employer or professional advisory board to ensure the relevance and currency of our programmes. These links in the design of courses are carried through into course delivery. For example, all second year interior and creative design students are engaged with live industry projects, while students from mathematics, physics, astrophysics and aerospace engineering work collaboratively on a space mission design module where they are mentored and judged by industry professionals. The advantages of this engaged approach to higher education are obvious in the excellent graduate outcomes that our students achieve, benefitting them in raising their aspiration and achieving their career ambitions.

October 2017

VAL0049

Written Evidence submitted by Dr Steven Jones,

University of Manchester

1. The evidence I submit emerges from a number of research projects that I have been involved with over the last five years, most notably a collaboration between Dr Katy Vigurs, then of the University of Staffordshire, and Dr Diane Harris of the University of Manchester. This project involved interviewing 92 final year undergraduate students just before they graduated in relation to their employment plans, their financial situation and their experience of university. Interviews were conducted at two different universities, one a Russell Group university and one a Post-1992 university. Half of the interviews were conducted in 2014 (when graduating students would repay lower fees) and half in 2015 (when graduating students would repay higher fees). Graduates from 2014 were ‘matched’ with graduates from 2015 according to socio-economic background, gender, degree subject and secondary school type so that fair comparisons could be made. All interviewees were aged 20-23.

2. The project data offers rich evidence about value for money (VFM) from a student perspective. However, a key finding is that current students and recent graduates are not always well placed to judge VFM because they struggle to visualise the long-term gains to themselves and society that their degree might offer. When asked about VFM, interviewees were more likely to reflect on their immediate (often challenging) financial situation than to consider longer term gains.

3. Among the 92 students interviewed, there was an overall fall in the proportion of students reporting VFM (from 71% in 2014 to 50% in 2015). This fall coincides with the rise in fees.

4. This fall in the proportion of students reporting VFM was sharpest among state-educated students who did not qualify for bursaries (72% to 40%). For state-educated students who did qualify for bursaries, a lesser fall was observable (60% to 56%). The effect of bursaries and non-repayable maintenance loans were crucial in mitigating against the rise in fees.

5. The fall in the proportion of students reporting VFM was sharper among students at the post-92 university (69% to 26%) than among those at Russell Group University (where there was a small rise from 73% to 76%). This may suggest that students in the post-92 sector are more price-sensitive, perhaps because they perceive fewer opportunities in the graduate labour market.

VAL0049

6. Students conceptualise VFM in very different ways. For some, value was

clear: “it’s probably the investment you need to make” (Russell Group WP student paying higher fees). For others, value was closely related to degree outcome: “instead of coming out with a first like I should’ve done, I’m probably going to get like a 2ii which makes the whole thing definitely not worth the money” (Post-92 non-WP student paying lower fees). While for others, participation was seen through a utilitarian lens: “it put me off being in that much debt after we finish but then I realized that without an undergraduate degree you’re not really going to get anywhere in life.” (Post-92 non-WP student paying higher fees). Evidence suggest that future generations of students will choose their degree programmes differently, and target subjects they perceive to be most vocational.

7. Previous (quantitative) surveys about students’ perception of VFM should

be treated with caution. Decreases in the proportion of students reporting value are usually attributable to increases in fee levels rather than to declines in satisfaction. Indeed, the 2016 Student Academic Experience Survey (undertaken jointly by the Higher Education Policy Institute and the Higher Education Academy) explicitly attributes the decrease in VFM to students “incurring much larger debts than in the past even though universities’ teaching income has not increased commensurately.”

8. The findings from the research that I have undertaken, and to which I have contributed, suggest that student’s perception of VFM are:

a. Strongly predicted by their socio-economic background, school type, etc.;

b. Often considered irrelevant because of the degree’s assumed necessity in labour market;

c. Determined by cost more than by quality.

9. Framing Higher Education in VFM terms encourages students to conceptualise their learning in passive, consumeristic terms. Many resist this framing, preferring to think of university as an opportunity to collaborate with scholars in the co-production of new knowledge and to develop as critical, independent thinkers. The extent to which ‘evidence’ from students about VFM can usefully inform policy therefore remains open to question. October 2017

VAL0055

Written evidence submitted by the University of Sheffield

1. Executive Summary

I. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data:

a. Many roles which are required by society and are personally fulfilling do not attract the highest salaries.

b. There are a number of factors which play a part in graduate destinations which universities have no control over.

II. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students a. The University of Sheffield is a highly selective institution with a

strong track record of attracting and retaining students from under-represented groups in higher education.

b. Significant investment has been made and the effects of this are reflected in our low non-continuation rates and excellent progression statistics.

III. Senior management pay in universities a. Higher Education (HE) is an efficient sector and we take Value for

Money, efficiency and the effective use of funds seriously and public scrutiny is already high, with significant transparency.

b. The role of Vice-Chancellor is a major one and recruitment and retention involves significant competition on a global scale.

IV. Quality and effectiveness of teaching a. It is right to encourage excellent teaching in HE but we do not

believe that the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is the initiative to deliver this.

b. The metrics chosen for TEF do not offer causal links to teaching excellence and introduce the potential for perverse consequences.

V. The role of the Office for Students a. It will be vitally important that there is an effective working

relationship with the sector; it has been to the success of the sector to have a regulatory body which both challenges the sector and also supports enhancement.

b. A fractious relationship would benefit no organisation, and students even less.

Sir Keith Burnett, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, recently wrote an article in the Times Higher looking at whether UK universities provide value for money and a copy is attached as appendix A.

2. Introduction

2.1. With almost 27,000 of the brightest students from over 140 countries, learning alongside over 1,200 of the best academics from across the globe, the University of Sheffield is one of the world’s leading universities.

VAL0055

2.2. A member of the UK’s prestigious Russell Group of leading research-led

institutions, Sheffield offers world-class teaching and research excellence across a wide range of disciplines.

2.3. Unified by the power of discovery and understanding, staff and students at the university are committed to finding new ways to transform the world we live in.

2.4. Sheffield is the only university to feature in The Sunday Times 100 Best Not-For-Profit Organisations to Work For 2017 and was voted number one university in the UK for Student Satisfaction by Times Higher Education in 2014. In the last decade it has won four Queen’s Anniversary Prizes in recognition of the outstanding contribution to the United Kingdom’s intellectual, economic, cultural and social life.

2.5. Sheffield has six Nobel Prize winners among former staff and students and its alumni go on to hold positions of great responsibility and influence all over the world, making significant contributions in their chosen fields.

2.6. Global research partners and clients include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Unilever, AstraZeneca, Glaxo SmithKline, Siemens and Airbus, as well as many UK and overseas government agencies and charitable foundations.

2.7. The University of Sheffield and Sheffield Students’ Union agree on many points regarding Value for Money in Higher Education and these will be evident in our individual submissions.

3. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data 3.1. Students and families are now explicitly paying a significant amount for

HE beyond general taxation; we recognise that students need, and want, to be fully aware of their possible paths to a career.

3.2. Our students are concerned that we could start to see them purely in terms of their future earnings capability – and indeed a university could be incentivised to recruit students in subject areas liable to lead to high paid roles regardless of the societal value of the subject.

3.3. Many roles which are required by society and are personally fulfilling do not attract the highest salaries, including teaching, nursing, social work, international aid and work in the not-for-profit sector. In these areas, a measure of graduate earnings is not particularly useful to society or student choice.

3.4. More widely, in terms of graduate destinations, there are a number of factors which play a part in whether and where a graduate can attain higher-level employment which universities have no control over, for example the labour market and economic conditions. Although, we offer high-quality provision and through strong relationships with employers, professional bodies etc. ensure that our provision connects to labour market needs we

VAL0055

are not able to influence directly how a graduate will fare in seeking employment in the market.

3.5. We would also draw out the tension that in the graduate destination debate, especially now in the context of the Teaching Excellence Framework, we are held accountable for the labour market but our role in supporting specific sectors and local, regional and national economies is not always recognised in the debate on value for money – and outcomes for graduates.

3.6. For example, the Sheffield Innovation Programme is a regional initiative,

jointly delivered between the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University, which aims to stimulate business growth and promote the development of long-term relationships with small and medium enterprises by providing access to a broad range of academic expertise and university facilities. The support is in the form of bespoke research and innovation based consultancy, workshops and other events. The universities will each provide a minimum of 12 hours of contact time to each company. The programme is part financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and will run until 31st July 2019.

3.7. The University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre with Boeing (AMRC) helps manufacturers of any size to become more competitive by introducing advanced techniques, technologies and processes. The AMRC is a core part of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, an alliance of seven leading manufacturing research centres backed by the UK’s innovation agency, Innovate UK. Being part of the Catapult ensures that the AMRC plays a core role in the revival of the national manufacturing sector.

4. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students

4.1. The University of Sheffield is a highly selective institution with a strong track record of attracting and retaining students from under-represented groups in HE. The University has a long-standing commitment to widening participation (WP) and fair access, not only to its own programmes of study, but also to HE in general. The University has worked with schools and colleges for decades, to improve achievement of young people within the region and to raise awareness of and aspiration to a range of educational opportunities. This strongly reflects the University’s Mission, Vision and Identity and the foundation on which the University was built:

The University of Sheffield has roots going back to 1828 and was founded formally in 1905 via penny donations from local citizens. The aim was to bring HE within reach of the children of the people working in the great industries of Sheffield, to give support to those industries and to serve as a centre for the study of diseases. The University is proud of its origins and continues to value the role it has come to play in its city and region.

4.2. The University continues to play a key role within the city and the region

and has a strong sense of civic responsibility. This is demonstrated, amongst other things, through the wide-ranging initiatives we deliver collaboratively

VAL0055

with schools, colleges and other local HE providers in order to widen participation to HE.

4.3. In our Access Agreement for 2018/19 we continue to take a whole lifecycle approach to widening participation and aim to address the challenges that students from disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds continue to face when engaging with HE.

4.4. This whole student life-cycle approach to Widening Participation is a key part of the University of Sheffield and has been evident in our commitment to access, student success and progression in our previous Access Agreements. Significant investment has been made in these three areas and the effects of this are reflected in our low non-continuation rates and excellent progression statistics.

4.5. The principles that underpin our widening participation strategy focus on two key and distinctive areas:

4.6. Outreach and Civic engagement

Building on the foundations of the University and our lasting commitment to support the people of Sheffield we work to raise aspirations and attainment across Sheffield and the wider South Yorkshire region. We work collaboratively to ensure that appropriate information, advice and guidance about progression opportunities is available to all with the potential to progress to HE, not just to highly selective institutions such as the University of Sheffield.

4.7. Widening Participation to the University of Sheffield

Many students from widening participation backgrounds have the academic potential to progress to, and succeed at selective institutions such as the University of Sheffield but choose not to apply. Through targeted sustained engagement with individual high achievers from WP backgrounds, we support these learners to make informed decisions throughout their education to give them the confidence and skills to succeed.

4.8. The University’s continued commitment to the widening access agenda

has led us to participate in a number of Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Catalyst funded projects to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds and under-represented groups. The outcomes of these projects may help to inform future practice in this area.

4.9. For 2018/19 we have forecasted to spend £14.3 million on measures to further improve access, student success and progression of students from WP target groups.

5. Senior management pay in universities 5.1. We take Value for Money, efficiency and the effective use of funds

seriously and public scrutiny is already high, with significant transparency.

VAL0055

5.2. As a sector, a Universities UK report ‘Efficiency, effectiveness and value for money’, published in 2015 states that Universities have consistently met efficiency targets that had been set in successive Comprehensive Spending Reviews (£1.38 billion of efficiencies were reported against a cumulative target of £1.23 billion) and have made over £1 billion in efficiency and cost savings over the preceding three year period.

5.3. The terms and conditions of grants from the state provided through HEFCE are contained in HEFCE’s Memorandum of Assurance and Accountability. This requires the governing bodies of higher education institutions to use public funds for proper purposes and seeks to achieve value for money from public funds.

5.4. For more than 20 years higher education institutions have been required

to disclose their vice-chancellors’ remuneration in their annual financial statements, together with information about the remuneration of higher-paid staff and any severance compensation payments made to them. The University of Sheffield’s Annual Report and Financial Statements from 2000 to this year’s report are published on our website.

5.5. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) has confirmed it will develop and introduce its own remuneration code. The University of Sheffield will continue to work with the CUC on ensuring clarity regarding senior pay is communicated more widely to our students and funders.

5.6. The role of leading an international organisation with a total annual income of £635m (for the year ending July 2016) is a major one and spans a range of complex areas. Getting and retaining the best person for the job involves significant competition on a global scale.

5.7. We would caution that there is a risk that the focus in the current debate on senior pay and vice-chancellor pay presents a misleading impression that in reducing these pay levels by an arbitrary amount more resources would then be available to enhance the student experience within an institution. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how funding works within higher education institutions, or indeed, any large organisation.

6. Quality and effectiveness of teaching 6.1. We agree that it is right to encourage excellent teaching in HE but we do

not believe that the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is the initiative to deliver this. Our main point still remains: If the intention is to identify and measure teaching quality then it is unlikely that TEF will provide appropriate data to inform student decision making; conversely if the TEF is being developed for students and employers to inform choice then it will not necessarily be suitable as a measure of teaching quality.

6.2. The ethos behind the TEF is right but it is fundamentally flawed in its implementation. The metrics chosen: National Student Survey (NSS); non-continuation rates; and 6-month Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE), and additionally Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) and a grade inflation metric, do not offer causal links to teaching excellence.

VAL0055

To focus on these metrics introduces the potential for perverse consequences.

6.3. Although there is no accepted definition of what indicators demonstrate good quality/teaching Professor Graham Gibbs’ work has brought together much of the research in this area. It offers suggestions for areas where HE providers could focus their efforts to help students get the best out of their learning experience. It is notable that the TEF indicators are not the right indicators according to the research.

6.4. We note that there is an intention to capture ‘contact hours’ in future

versions of the TEF. The demand for increased contact hours and the desire of many parents to make students work harder for the money they pay needs to be greeted with caution as students do work hard in pursuing their studies and the need for contact will vary by subject. The quantity of contact hours are not a measure of quality or of teaching excellence. Instead the focus should be what is done in the contact time and independent study – how does the combined teaching and learning experience deepen a student’s academic engagement and understanding. Sitting in many hours of lectures in listening mode/receiving information does not equate to quality. Reading/interrogating information and then coming to small group classes to actively participate in discussion and ask questions promotes deeper learning.

7. The role of the Office for Students 7.1. The role of the Office for Students (OfS) as a regulator with the powers

set out in the Higher Education and Research Act is a distinctly new one for the sector.

7.2. We will respond to the consultations on the detail of how the OfS will operate. Whilst recognising the role the OfS will play we will reiterate the importance of institutional autonomy. It will be crucial how the OfS operates in practice and it will be vitally important that there is an effective working relationship with the sector, where support and enhancement continue to play a role. A fractious relationship would benefit no organisation, and students even less.

October 2017

VAL0055

Appendix A Do UK universities provide value for money? September 18, 2017 By Keith Burnett Talk about higher education and it doesn’t take long before you are talking about money. It isn’t just tuition fees and debt, and the impact these are having on students and graduates. It is also the question of value. Is higher education “worth it”? Now, despite the fact that the UK tops the global rankings for universities, politicians are worried. They know that young voters are angry about the removal of public funding and the costs that now fall to them. So after the name-calling and accusations that universities are sitting on mountains of surplus cash, the focus is now on graduate salaries and value for money, with the value of arts courses in particular under scrutiny. Which poses the question. How do I calculate the value of a degree in history? How do I calculate the value of anything? My thoughts of course immediately go to my own University of Sheffield. I think of a subject such as history, which I know is wonderful and not only because the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, [whose subject level rankings were unveiled on 13 September], say that Sheffield’s arts and humanities are ranked well into the top 100 for their field globally at 67th in the world. Or because it has been led by scholars such as Ian Kershaw whose work on Nazi Germany is revered around the world. After all, the president of the British Academy Sir David Cannadine, who knows a thing or two about scholarship, told me it was truly excellent. So it must be true, right? But in this new world of costing higher education, should I really care about what he thinks or about the assessment of peers around the world? Shouldn’t I just be asking, “Is history at Sheffield value for money?” If I was a free marketeer I would simply use the price that I can charge to measure the value. So far in UK higher education the price has in essence been fixed, so we couldn’t use that to find out the value and need another way. In any case, far better economic thinkers than me have said applying market economics to education is completely wrong headed. Students are not buying a product with known characteristics, but an education and the many lifelong implications that will depend in part on their own circumstances, character and opportunity. But, at its core, the value of their history degree depends fundamentally on their ability as historians, and that can be determined only by doing the course. So if capitalism is out, what about the “Red” side? What does a central planning approach have to offer? Is it truly a “road to serfdom”? In the old days of the Soviet Union, following the precepts of Marxian economics, politicians used to calculate the value of all things, yes everything, in terms of

VAL0055

the effective amount of labour it took to make them. You can see the attraction of this idea with its appeal to justice and transparency. There was a problem, though. It may be straightforward to find out the cost of making something in hours and skills, but it is damned hard to establish value. This quickly became clear. Although Soviet economic planners tried all sorts of ways to measure goods – including not just the hours worked, the skill of the worker, the complexity of the task and the product – somehow they killed the good they wanted to preserve. Measurement and planning quickly bordered on absurdity; those on the receiving end tried to game the system. A black market sprang up for the luxury for which people still yearned and the Soviet economy was driven into the ground. And if we try to measure higher education in terms of an ever more complex set of metrics that establish “value for money” we will find the same. You may remember, if you are as old as me, that the Soviet Union was excellent at mass producing goods of low quality. They often weren't the things people needed of course, but they were “good value for money”. Yet this desire to pin down value is infectious and we can’t blame those who are drawn to it if we don’t explain what is really at stake. So when a parent asks, “How many contact hours does my kid get at university?” or “How much money will they earn afterwards?”, they are really making sure that they are not being ripped off. They are trying to get at the value for money from their child’s point of view. And given that they and their children are now bearing the costs directly, who can blame them? When a government calculates the value of a degree based on the income of young graduates, disregarding the myriad other factors that determine this, what does it say about the way they measure education? Especially when we know that family wealth and whether or not a student has the contacts or support to take up an internship in London may be the entry point to a well-paid career. When I see the way value is being judged, my instincts as an academic scream at the poverty-stricken approach of using such crude numbers to capture real life. But a fair question demands an answer, so let me have a go from a common sense point of view, informed by working in universities for 45 years, to say why I think we need a broader approach. I want to explain why I think the current attempts to measure history at Sheffield – or any other of our subjects – simply through a simplistic assessment of value for money are a loaded and dangerous approach. Dangerous for the country. Dangerous for our students. Dangerous for scholarship. It is dangerous for our country because we need good insights into our world, not phoney ones. They come from the very best historians, scholars of the kind you will find at the University of Sheffield. These are precious people in demand across the world. It takes them many years to become true historians and they need a lot of time to read and to think. This is mostly time applied to their research when they are not teaching. But we know that the amount the government pays for research has gone down in real terms over the years, frozen in cash terms since 2007. This is making it harder to give our historians the time for scholarship that they need.

VAL0055

If a parent wants “better value for money” in the sense that they long for their child to be taught by truly great thinkers then they need to think of education in its fullest sense. Perhaps they should be concerned at the erosion of resource for the kind of work that won their child’s university and department international respect. What academics do when they are not teaching matters for our students because their futures will depend on our reputation many years ahead. A student may have lots of contact hours but that is not the question that will be asked in an interview. It will be the academic reputation of the university and their subject that goes with them. It will be the network of other smart historians and their fellow graduates that will help get them a job. And beyond employability, it will be rigour and challenge, wonder and inspiration that a graduate will take into the world beyond the university. For whatever the longitudinal education outcomes (LEO) data on long-term earnings, that will come from those who are themselves challenged, who are inspiring and inspired. In fact, their teachers need more time – not less – to realise their potential. But this all comes down to funds to pay for research and scholarship. Which is why it isn’t just students who have questions. If you are a member of academic staff in history you are asking the same of the university management. You are asking us to make sure we are getting as much as possible resource to the department. Indeed, that matters and we in Sheffield are looking closely at that, and I know others will be doing the same. But now we face new questions about the comparative value of subjects. We are asked about the balance between subjects and whether we use money from arts and humanities to subsidise more expensive courses in science and engineering. That one at least is easy. In Sheffield, we do not. Costly subjects, such as engineering with the facilities these require, do have a benefactor, but it is not our historians. Instead we owe our wonderful labs and teaching spaces to the vital support of the parents in Shanghai and Delhi, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore who know without any doubt that the hard-won global reputation of our university will open lifelong doors of opportunity to their children, benefiting ours on the way. How do we measure value in a subject like history? Not by simply adding up the sum of its parts – teaching hours or the salaries commanded by its graduates. No, if we think like this we really will murder to dissect. The motto of our university is “Rerum cognoscere causas”. We work in a university in which we believe that understanding the true nature and causes of things is precious. Our crest incorporates a book that balances two words: disce, doce. “Learn and teach.” We know that if we neglect our own scholarship, we undermine what we can give to our students. As university campuses across the UK once again fill with students, I want to thank all those who are dedicated to their learning. But it is not only our students who should be touched by the fire of discovery. What we value is what

VAL0055

they must also learn, that to be educated we must never neglect a search for understanding that has value for its own sake. UK universities have made an immeasurable contribution to generations of students and to the world. We can only hope that our politicians will also pause and consider that our wonderful universities carry at their heart a truth that we inherited from those who came long before us and which we trust will outlive us all – that to know how much we need to learn is the beginning of wisdom.

VAL0030

Written evidence submitted by The University of Sheffield Students Union

1) Sheffield Students’ Union

a) The University of Sheffield Students’ Union is the representative body of 28,000 students at the University of Sheffield. Our reason for submitting evidence is to effectively represent the student voice at Sheffield.

b) The themes of social justice, high quality teaching and ensuring student representation from university committees to national bodies are inherently connected to our day to day operations.

c) Through our evidence and discussions below, we hope to provide the committee an insight into the perspective of Sheffield students’ on the current state and interpretation of value for money within the sector.

d) The University of Sheffield and Sheffield Students’ Union are in agreement on many points surrounding Value for Money in Higher Education; this emerges throughout our individual submissions.

2) Graduate outcomes and destination data

a) Graduate outcomes do not measure teaching quality:

i) On the issues surrounding the use of graduate outcomes and destination data, Sheffield Students’ Union believes such metrics would incorrectly measure the worth of a degree or institution.

ii) Reliance on such metrics may lead to prioritisation of courses create high-paying roles (Ashby, 2017) such as economics, business management and Medicine & Dentistry, or Universities selecting students who have the best earnings potential.

iii) A report by the Sutton Trust (Kirby, 2016) suggests this would benefit privately or independently educated students with privileged backgrounds and broad professional pre-existing networks.

iv) By simplifying teaching quality to the pay packet a student earns we devalue the potential for providing students with a teaching experience includes personal development and fulfilment, experience and progression into roles are of benefit to wider society.

VAL0030

v) Comments from our University of Sheffield Womens’ Committee in response to 2015 The Higher Education Green Paper suggests , ‘looking at wages is an overly narrow way to assess student experiences, and assumes everyone wants, or can access, high paying jobs’ (Appendix A).

vi) Feedback such as the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE) only captures progression 6 months after graduation which is not a reflection of an excellent or poor teaching experience, particularly in the current job market where many high skilled jobs are not on offer.

vii) An increasing number of graduates are also being placed into situations where they are taking on non-graduate jobs. Research by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) states 50,000 new graduates are in non-graduate jobs (Pells, 2016). This is creating artificial competition where by only graduates with successful degrees are finding graduate work.

viii) Similar questions can be asked of the new Graduate Outcomes Survey. Despite being a 15 month survey, this will not connect teaching quality and graduate outcomes.

ix) The rapidly changing job market means Universities must be looking to train students and value degrees can be flexible to trends and changes. Analysis of DLHE data (The Complete University Guide, 2016) shows graduate pay in Chemistry, Law and Medicine has declined between 2010-2015, whilst areas such as Construction have increased.

x) As many degrees take between 3 to 5 years to complete, pre-fixed roles these degrees create, such as accounting may have changed drastically in requirements and expectations from graduates. This is caused by events such as cuts, freezes on migrant labour and emerging sectors.

xi) Relying on outcomes data creates a regular pattern where demand dictates degree uptake, but cannot account for wider fluctuations or changes.

b) Use of graduate outcomes as a metric fails to reflect regional variations and exacerbates regional inequality:

i) Additionally, reliance on graduate outcomes may fail to reflect and could exasperate regional variations and inequality. Research provided by Centre for Cities (Swinney & Williams, 2016) flags the ‘Great British Brain Drain’ with London being a priority for high achievers.

ii) With 82% of students facing increasing pressures to be earning money within 6 months of graduating according to research from YouGov (Smith, 2017), students are driven by

VAL0030

the reality of job opportunities. Roughly 38% of Russell Group students with a first or 2:1 move to London.

iii) Reliance on graduate outcomes and destination data may have the effect of companies and wider job opportunities focusing efforts on the South. This can lead to students making a choice between income and quality of life. Long-term, this leaves graduates to live with family members, of which 47% of graduates (NUS, 2016) are reliant on. Likewise this reinforces and benefits those with pre-existing connections, as outlined in 1a.

iv) To counteract this, the University of Sheffield Students’ Union believes efforts should be made to support local and regional economies can attract growth and graduate retention. The current structure of graduate outcomes and DLHE/HMRC would discourage efforts from employers to invest time and energy outside of the South.

c) Graduate outcomes do not measure teaching quality:

i) Graduate outcomes and destination data must be considered in the context of public and private sector work. Many personally rewarding roles, essential to society do not attract the highest salaries, such as teaching, social work and nursing.

ii) Using graduate salary without consideration of these areas may have a detrimental impact on these crucial professions moving forward. Reliance on graduate outcomes could make it difficult to account for these variations fairly, alongside societal considerations, such as the gender pay gap.

iii) Wider initiatives, such as the Government’s racial disparity audit (Vaughan, 2017) into discrimination against women and minorities in the public sector must also be considered as a part of this discussion.

iv) Achieving a high salary is not the only function of Higher Education and there are societal benefits which can’t be measured through graduate outcomes. To focus solely on earnings would discourage students from taking up courses such as teaching and nursing.

v) In the case of nursing, research (Gkantaras, et al., 2016) suggests links exist between nurses who graduate with degrees and improved patient outcomes.

vi) Initiatives such as Teach First (2017) where high performing graduates are brought into low performing schools are an example of societal benefit.

VAL0030

vii) Similar examples can be found within social care with Frontline (2017) where 1,600 individuals will have completed training programmes by 2020, addressing social disadvantage.

viii) The current structure of focusing on graduate outcomes and destination data will not provide an adequate picture of the work these careers undertake and the benefit they provide. Instead outcomes would be skewed towards fixed graduate schemes and high salary graduate jobs.

ix) A metric of this type risks encouraging universities to channel their students towards the higher paying careers and regions, regardless of societal benefit, economic utility and the needs of areas outside of London and the South East.

3) Social justice in higher education

a) Sheffield Students’ Union believes barriers to participation are created through aspects of marketisation, such as high tuition fees and the removal of the maintenance grant, disproportionately affect students who are already disadvantaged (such as BME students, disabled students, and students from low-income households).

i) The Institute for Fiscal Studies (Belfield, et. al., 2017) found the poorest students accrue the greatest student debts, of up to £57,000. IFS attributes this trend to the removal of the maintenance grant scheme which made the “poorest 40%” of students graduate with an average £14,000 in additional debt compared to the “richest 30%” (Belfield, et. al., 2017, p.17).

ii) The prospect of high student debt disproportionately deters students from a lower socioeconomic background from university study. Controlling for a wide range of factors, a 2005 study found students from lower socioeconomic classes were more debt-averse and more likely to be deterred from going to university because of debt (Callender & Jackson, 2005).

iii) A 2015 NUS Report found BME graduates were less likely to be informed about the tuition fee system than their counterparts. Specifically, they were less likely to understand the practical differences between student and commercial debt, more likely to be concerned about the interest rate on student loans, and are more likely to want to pay off their debt straight away, which “[raised] some concerns over whether BME graduates fully understand the comparative benefits of income-contingent repayment and debt cancellation after 30 years” (NUS, 2015a, p. 10). It is suggested in the report this misunderstanding of the fee

VAL0030

system puts BME graduates at greater risk of financial mismanagement and suggests information about the tuition fees system is not being properly provided to these groups.

b) These barriers compound pre-existing challenges for disadvantaged students such as failure to meet accessibility requirements and difficulties financially supporting oneself during one’s studies.

i) In 2013, Disabled students were found to be more likely to take on low risk debt, and twice as likely to take on high risk debt, to supplement their income during their studies (NUS, 2015b, p. 6). 55% of disabled students have seriously considered leaving their course, compared to 35% of non-disabled students (NUS, 2015b, p. 9).

ii) Mature students in HE are more likely than their counterparts to seek institutional discretionary funding, and to have anxieties related to financial struggles. They are also less likely to be in paid employment and are more likely to be in receipt of public benefits (NUS, 2015c).

iii) Women students are more likely to work alongside their studies and more likely to work for lower wages, with 33% of women in work earning less than £6.08 an hour, compared to 29% of their male counterparts. Despite this, male students were almost twice as likely to receive sponsorship from a business or employer for their studies (5% of male students versus 3% of female students) (NUS, 2015d, p. 5).

iv) Women students indicated lower well-being across most of the questions asked in the survey; more than half (53 per cent) of women indicated they regularly worried about not having enough money to meet their basic living expenses, compared to 42 per cent of men students (NUS, 2015d, p. 2).

c) Sheffield Students’ Union believes this is a social injustice and is contrary to the role of HE in promoting social mobility.

i) Disadvantaged students access less benefit from HE than their counterparts despite paying the same fees. In this way, they have worse value for money, and the function of HE as an enabler of social mobility is not served.

ii) 57.1% of UK-domiciled BME graduates receive a “first” or “upper-second” class degree, compared to 73.2% of white British graduates. This creates an attainment gap of 16.1%. (ECU, 2017). Approximately three quarters of graduate employers sift out applications which do not have a minimum of an upper-second class degree when hiring graduates (Snowdon, 2012). This suggests BME graduates are

VAL0030

disproportionately rejected from graduate schemes on the basis of the attainment gap.

iii) Disadvantaged students are getting less value for money than their counterparts after they graduate, as they are still less likely to be employed, and earn less when employed, than their counterparts.

iv) The number of BME graduates has increased, but despite this, the income gap and “jobs gap” between white graduates and their BME counterparts has persisted. Bangladeshi and Pakistani graduates, for instance, are 12% less likely to hold a job than white graduates (Resolution Foundation, 2017).

v) BME graduates “are also more likely to work in low-paid occupations such as caring, leisure and sales jobs, and elementary occupations such as cleaners and security staff” (Resolution Foundation, 2017).

vi) 60% of disabled graduates are employed, in comparison to 65% of non-disabled graduates (EHRC, 2017, p. 8).

4) Senior management pay

a) Pay ratios and fairness

i) Sheffield Students’ Union has a “ten-to-one pay ratio” policy (SSU, 2017) which stipulates no member of senior management should be paid more than ten times of the lowest-earning staff member. As such, SSU agrees senior management pay is an issue of genuine concern which should be raised in conversations about both fairness and efficiency in HE funding.

ii) SSU believes there needs to be more openness and student input into senior management remuneration. Student leaders should be full members of remuneration committees as standard.

b) The wider backdrop of HE funding

i) Despite this, SSU agrees with the University of Sheffield the disproportionate focus on this issue means far greater financial challenges to HEIs are neglected. Such challenges include:

(1) The uncertain future of access to EU-based funding.

(2) The shifting landscape of domestic higher education funding in England.

(3) The increasing national student debt, in real terms and as a proportion of the national debt

VAL0030

(Monaghan & Weale, 2017).

5) Quality and effectiveness of teaching

a) Quality and effectiveness of teaching requires a better measurement than what is provided by the Teaching Excellence Framework:

i) Our primary argument is teaching must be measured and assessed outside of what is currently an economically dominated mind-set.

ii) As suggested by economics commentator Martin Wolf, higher education ‘relies too heavily on naive economic arguments. Economics has an important role to play in analysing the future of universities, but it must not play a preponderant role’ (Wolf, 2017).

iii) The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) fails to deliver a measurement of quality and effectiveness of teaching. Current metrics such as employment through DLHE and dropout rate ILR data are disconnected from the day to day operations of teaching.

iv) Furthermore, new suggested measures as part of TEF 3 (2017/18) the gross teaching quotient continue this trend. Teaching intensity is not clearly measured through class size when the process places a class of 21 and a class of 40 in the same category.

v) Contact hours is also a misleading statistic, with arts subjects being penalised due to the different approach they take to their teaching through independent learning and a more seminar based structure. These narratives lend themselves towards pricing each lecture or seminar at a certain value which is counterintuitive to the diverse nature of higher education.

vi) During the 2016/17 academic year Sheffield Students’ Union ran a successful campaign highlighting issues around the TEF, entitled ‘Shef better than TEF’ (SSU, 2017b). This campaign gathered 2,500 signatures from students and staff alike in protest to the impact of the TEF on high quality teaching.

vii) We received many comments from students on their thoughts of effective education and the point of a degree. Some examples are provided below:

(1) ‘The quality of your education should not be determined by how much money your family has, it should be determined by how much you want to learn’.

VAL0030

(2) ‘TEF is the person who asks "what job do you want to get from your degree" not the real question which is "what would you like to learn?’

viii) As a part of the Students’ Union contribution to the 2015 Higher Education Green Paper, 182 students and 4 of our Representative Committees (LGBT+, Womens’, Disabled Students, and Postgraduate Students’) were consulted specifically on the TEF and asked how they classify excellent learning. From their feedback, three clear strands emerged (Appendix B):

(1) Diversity (what is learned and how). (2) Meaningful engagement between staff and

students. (3) Learning communities.

ix) These students also recognised diverse forms of teaching as important (seminars, labs, podcasts and practical activities) as well as opportunities around volunteering, societies and the building of student communities, as being crucial to their learning.

x) The range of what students’ value highlights the problematic nature of quantifying an excellent learning experience in the ways outlined by the TEF. As one of our student Academic Representatives states: “An excellent learning experience is shaped by first and foremost, an interesting curriculum and passionate, expert lecturers. Second, good resources and academic support. Third, an overall feeling of happiness and fulfilment achieved by following other passions and interests.”

xi) In terms of alternatives, Sheffield Students’ Union agree some form of measurement of teaching should be provided to assist students, but this could be done locally, with assistance from the QAA (2017).

xii) For example, a structure of peer to peer evaluation for academic staff which could also include students as a part of the process to promote engagement and innovation. A combination of external examination and 5 year institutional reviews provided by the QAA and its framework/training programmes would help in maintaining consistent high quality teaching.

xiii) Other measures of ensuring effective teaching could be done locally through departmental and faculty periodic reviews and a more effective implementation of comments provided by students in module/programme feedback forms.

xiv) At the University of Sheffield, best practice and quality enhance are encouraged through forums such as ‘off the

VAL0030

record’ (The University of Sheffield, 2016) which encourage collaboration and best practice in effective teaching.

xv) Sheffield Students’ Union believes by encouraging institutions to use similar suggestions as above, we can create a standard around duty of care and best practice across the country whilst not participating within market competition. Relying on competition through metrics such as TEF drive down quality for struggling institutions and divert resourcing and funding to successful institutions.

xvi) What is important for students is to create a universal and collaborative learning and teaching experience. Not one is focused on value and forced competition.

b) The reliance on improper metrics promotes gaming of league tables and other measures of teaching:

i) As suggested above, financial measures are an ill-suited proxy for teaching quality which encourages behaviours don’t foster high quality teaching.

ii) The primary concern exists with league tables and similar existing measures of teaching, which ultimately lead towards gaming of the system. Select comments provided by senior lecturers (Franco-Santos & Otley, 2017) flag this concern within the context of the TEF:

iii) ‘The increase in resources dedicated to the processes captured in these metrics will drive rankings improvements. When this happens, other important aspects related to education quality…will be sidelined…working culture, collegiality, academic freedom. Some improvements may be due to pure gaming strategies…grade inflation, easier courses, entertaining students, and an increase in recruitment of students who are less likely to generate problems and who are more likely to be employable’.

iv) Further concerns (2017) are raised by Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of outreach organisation Push:

v) ‘In higher education, there is no such thing as The Best. By pretending there is, we discourage the very diversity is a key strength of global higher education. Students are different. Countries are different. Universities exist for different purposes’.

vi) Similar concerns are addressed in section 2 of this consultation. League tables encourage a restriction of diversity within the Higher Education sector. Both in terms of diversity of courses and University offers to the diversity of our student populations. It suggests one institution can be

VAL0030

better than all others which detract from the wider purpose and intention of higher education.

c) This misunderstands the purpose of teaching in higher education being education is of inherent benefit to the individual and wider society:

i) High quality and effective teaching takes on many forms, and is of inherent benefit to many individuals and wider society as a result. Teaching itself has many aims, from developing skills in the workplace to allowing individuals to engage critically with society and events happening around them. Creating an education and informed population of citizens within the UK.

ii) This ethos of helping students to become well rounded members of society, alongside undertaking a degree is reflected within the Students’ Union Strategy (SSU, 2017). In which we aim to provide a, ‘top quality education, life-changing opportunities and experiences liberate and support them for the best possible future’.

iii) These aims are shared by the University of Sheffield through ‘Our Commitment’ (The University of Sheffield, 2017) in which the University aims to, ‘foster an environment in which everyone engages positively with their University and local community, treats others with respect, dignity and care, and speaks up for what is right’.

iv) Overall this suggests we cannot measure teaching as a valued item which, through metrics such as TEF, encourage spiralling costs. Education is a right, not a privilege and thus the wide ranging higher education experiences should be embraced rather than stifling teaching and embedding artificial competition through league tables.

6) Office for Students:

a) There is no need for the Office of Students to operate as a market regulator as higher education should not be seen as a market.

b) Students should be automatically represented and heard at all points of any evaluation process pertaining to higher education.

c) Sheffield Students’ Union is concerned by the Office for Students focusing on value for money, which carries a complicit connotation of the principle benefit from higher education being to the individual. Education is not a product, and students are not the consumers of it.

VAL0030

d) The Office for Students should be looking at value for money with regards to national finance and investment as opposed to a reductive cost-benefit analysis for individuals.

VAL0030

Bibliography Ashby, P. (2017, June 12). A beginner’s guide to Longitudinal Education

Outcomes (LEO) data. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from Wonkhe: http://wonkhe.com/blogs/a-beginners-guide-to-longitudinal-education-outcomes-leo-data/

Belfield, C., Britton, J., Dearden, L., & Erve, L. v. (2017). Higher Education funding in England: past, present and options for the future. Institute for Fiscal Studies. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from IFS: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9334

Callender, C., & Jackson, J. (2005). Does the Fear of Debt Deter Students from Higher Education? Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 509-540.

ECU. (2017). Degree attainment gaps. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from Equality Challenge Unit: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/student-recruitment-retention-attainment/student-attainment/degree-attainment-gaps/

EHRC. (2017). Being Disabled in Britain: A Journey Less Equal. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/being-disabled-in-britain.pdf

Franco-Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2017, June 22). The Tef won't improve teaching – universities will just play the game . Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jun/22/the-tef-wont-improve-teaching-universities-will-just-play-the-game

Frontline. (2017). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from Frontline: https://thefrontline.org.uk

Gkantaras, I., Mahfoud, Z. R., Foreman, B., Thompson, D. R., Cannaby, A. M., Deshpande, D. H., . . . Gray, R. (2016). The effect of Nurse GraduaTeness on patient mortality: a cross-sectional survey (the NuGaT study). Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 3034–3044.

Kirby, P. (2016). Leading People 2016. https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/leading-people-2016/ : Sutton Trust. Retrieved October 19, 2017

Monaghan, A., & Weale, S. (2017, June 15). UK student loan debt soars to more than £100bn. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/15/uk-student-loan-debt-soars-to-more-than-100bn

NUS. (2015a). Debt in the first degree. National Union of Students. NUS. (2015b). The Pound in Your Pocket: Disabled Students. National Union of

Students. NUS. (2015c). The Pound in Your Pocket: Mature Students. National Union of

Students. NUS. (2015d). The Pound in Your Pocket: Women Students. National Union of

Students. NUS. (2016, August 17). Almost half of 2015 graduates have moved back in

with parents. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from NUS: https://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/press-releases/almost-half-of-2015-graduates-have-moved-back-in-with-parents/

Pells, R. (2016, July 1). Thousands of graduates working in jobs don't require any qualifications. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/career-planning/thousands-of-graduates-working-in-jobs--dont-require-any-qualifications-a7114056.html

VAL0030

QAA. (2017). Home. Retrieved from The Quality Assurance Agency: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/home

Resolution Foundation. (2017, October 7). Rapid increase in BAME graduates still leave big gaps when it comes to their jobs and pay packets. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from Resolution Foundation: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/rapid-increase-in-bame-graduates-still-leave-big-gaps-when-it-comes-to-their-jobs-and-pay-packets/

Rich, J. (2017, May 2). The antidote to university league tables? . Retrieved from Wonkhe: http://wonkhe.com/blogs/comment-antidote-university-league-tables/

Smith, M. (2017, July 11). Eight in ten students feel pressure to get a job within 6 months of graduating. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from YouGov: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/07/11/eight-ten-students-feel-pressure-get-job-within-6-/

Snowdon, G. (2012, February 10). Graduates: is a 2:1 the best qualification for landing a job? Retrieved October 12, 2017, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/feb/10/graduates-best-qualification-landing-job

SSU. (2017). Ours for Life. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from Sheffield Students' Union: https://su.sheffield.ac.uk/about-us/intro-2017/welcome-to-your-su-page

SSU. (2017, May). Ten-to-One Pay Ratio. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from Sheffield Students' Union: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nusdigital/document/documents/34671/2ef9105f63e4e0b6dccb5f81a75800f0/12._Ten-to-One_Pay_Ratio.pdf

SSU. (2017b). Shef better than TEF. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from Sheffield Students' Union: https://su.sheffield.ac.uk/make-a-change/tef

Swinney, P., & Williams, M. (2016, November 21). The Great British Brain Drain. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from Centre for Cities: http://www.centreforcities.org/publication/great-british-brain-drain-where-graduates-move-and-why/

Teach First. (2017). Retrieved October 19, 2017, from Teach First: https://www.teachfirst.org.uk/

The Complete University Guide. (2016, October). What Do Graduates Earn? Retrieved October 20, 2017, from The Complete University Guide: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/careers/what-do-graduates-do-and-earn/what-do-graduates-earn/

The University of Sheffield. (2016). Off the Record. Retrieved from The University of Sheffield: https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/offtherecord/home?pli=1

The University of Sheffield. (2017). Our Commitment. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from The University of Sheffield: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ssid/ourcommitment

Vaughan, R. (2017, October 9). Theresa May publishes race audit warning ‘there is nowhere to hide’. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from Independent: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/theresa-may-publishes-race-audit-warning-nowhere-hide/

Wolf, M. (2017, May 24). Uses and Abuses of Economics in the Debate on Universities. Retrieved from The University of Sheffield: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/whatson/wolflecture

VAL0030

October 2017

VAL0030

Appendix: Appendix A: Question 10: Do you agree with the focus on teaching quality, learning environment, student outcomes and learning gain? ☐ Yes Please give reasons for your answer.

● Sheffield Students’ Union recognises the paper itself acknowledges ‘there is no agreed definition of excellence’. Given this statement, it is difficult to see how aspects such as teaching quality and learning environment can be quantified, though we agree to a point with the broad principles. The variety and complexity of aspects which make up students’ experience in these areas and which constitute the Higher Education sector broadly, are a large part of the sector’s value and world-renowned reputation.

● Sheffield Students’ Union does not agree with the use of ‘student

outcomes’ in measuring the worth of a degree or institution. Students and employers feel strongly the value of a degree is much more than their degree award and salary on entering employment, and the worth of their university experience cannot be measured by these criterion. University of Sheffield Postgraduate Committee:

“The value of your degree is subjective and motivation to achieve ‘student

outcomes’ will vary; although these motivations could include: careers, wages, personal development, and experience”.

University of Sheffield Womens’ Committee on Student Outcomes:

“Looking at wages is an overly narrow way to assess student experiences, and assumes everyone wants, or can access, high paying jobs.”

Appendix B: Question 2: How can information from the TEF be used to better inform student and employer decision making? Please quantify these benefits as far as you can.

● Sheffield Students’ Union agrees with the intent of improving transparency for students and encouraging consistent information to be available for students to make informed choices.

● However, the focus on student outcomes makes the proposed TEF

problematic and an inherently-flawed way of informing student decision-making. Data tells us our students value their learning outside of the traditional student/lecturer dichotomy and there are numerous factors involved in what they would classify as ‘teaching excellence’. Both in selecting universities and in classifying an excellent learning environment at University, students place great emphasis on aspects such as personal relationships, non-hierarchical/peer-learning, student welfare and support

VAL0030

services, extra curricular-activities, good relationships with tutors and participation in building student communities. None of these aspects are measured via the current proposals for the TEF.

● Sheffield Students’ Union Membership Survey consulted a small but robust

sample of students (500) regarding their ‘academic life’. Nearly two-thirds of students feel they learn best through their peers, and over 50% place importance on their own self-directed learning, as well as gaining work experience.

● A further 182 students and 4 of our Representative Committees (LGBT+,

Womens’, Disabled Students, and Postgraduate Students’) were consulted specifically on the TEF and asked how they classify excellent learning. From their feedback, three clear strands emerged: diversity (what is learned and how), meaningful engagement between staff and students, and learning communities. Although a small sample, these themes came up continuously and are part of a larger emerging picture from students in response to the TEF.

● Students recognised diverse forms of teaching as important (seminars,

labs, podcasts and practical activities) as well as diverse opportunities such as volunteering, societies and the building of student communities, as being crucial to their learning. The range of what students value, highlights the problematic nature of quantifying an excellent learning experience in the ways outlined by the TEF. As one of our student Academic Representatives states:

“An excellent learning experience is shaped by several factors. First and

foremost, an interesting curriculum and passionate, expert lecturers. Second, good resources and academic support. Third, an overall feeling of happiness and

fulfilment achieved by following other passions and interests.”

● Meaningful engagement between academic staff and students was another key theme which emerged as essential to what students define as an excellent learning experience.

“The best learning experiences I have had so far engage students on a personal

level as much as possible”.

“[An excellent learning experience is] a collaboration between the academic staff

and the students, working together to gain understanding and clarity”. “[Teaching excellence is] having a department listens through the Student Staff

Committee and does things in response to concerns brought up [...] Being listened to and having it shown to us that we're being listened to”

VAL0044

Written Evidence submitted by UCL UCL is London's leading multi-disciplinary university, with more than 11,000 staff and 38,000 students (53% postgraduate) from 150 different countries. We have a strong commitment to research-based education, ensuring students have the opportunity to learn through participating in enquiry and research. UCL was the top-rated university in the UK for research strength in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), by a measure of average research score multiplied by staff numbers submitted. 1. Summary

a. Research-intensive universities such as UCL have a strong track record in

supporting students into employment, and particularly into highly skilled employment.

b. Destinations data is a more nuanced indicator of graduate success than salary data because many students actively choose to move into sectors where salaries are lower.

c. Research-intensive universities invest considerably in widening access programmes which are evidence-based, highly targeted and continuously evaluated. These interventions can impact positively on the attainment of individuals but the cost of such schemes is high and unaffordable at scale. University-schools partnerships can be highly productive but there is no single model. Initial teacher training programmes have an important role to play in improving outcomes in the longer-term.

d. Senior management pay is subject to robust governance and reflects the responsibilities inherent in managing institutions with high turnovers, substantial student numbers and research on a world-class scale.

e. The principles behind the TEF are welcome but the current process does not measure quality in teaching; it is doubtful that this could be achieved without a level of investment disproportionate to the benefits achieved.

f. High-quality teaching requires sustained investment. It is not possible to separate the costs of teaching from those of research, because the infrastructure and staffing which facilitates world-leading research is also of benefit to students’ learning.

g. Universities must recognise the burden of debt that students and graduates now bear, but the costs of education will rise over time, and modest increases in tuition fees will be necessary if English universities are to remain world-leading.

VAL0044

h. Research indicates that the income-contingent loan model currently in operation is highly progressive and has led to an increase in per-head investment.

i. There is value in streamlining regulatory bodies, but the separation of the regulation of teaching and research does not reflect the inter-relationship of these endeavours in world-leading institutions.

j. Competition between institutions, in the market sense, is detrimental to sector diversity, and may not be in the best interests of students, given the complex array of factors that influence university choice.

2. Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

2.1 UCL welcomes a focus on graduate outcomes as a measure of the benefit of a

degree. In 2015-16, 84.7% of UCL undergraduates responding to the Destinations of Leavers in HE (DHLE) survey reported that they were in highly-skilled employment, with an unemployment rate of only 1.5%.

2.2 We consider that information about graduate employment destinations is a more nuanced indicator of value in this context than the Longitudinal Education Outcomes data (LEO), which captures salary outcomes for students up to 10 years after graduation. We believe it is misleading to equate student success or value for money with graduate salaries, as many students actively choose to move into sectors where salaries are lower. For the 2016-7 UCL undergraduate cohort, 19.6% of home / EU students went into the education sector, for example, 4.6% into public administration and defence and 2.8% into social work. We welcome the question in the new Graduate Outcomes survey which will ask students to indicate whether they consider that their university experience has been good preparation for work and study.

3. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students (how far are universities delivering a good service?)

3.1 At UCL, we spend c. £13.7m, or 30% of our additional fee income, on access and student success measures. This includes £8.4m on bursaries and hardship funds, £4.1m on outreach and pre-entry access activity, and £1.2m on on-course student success and progression. Each year we work with over 7,000 young people, 1,000 parents, 400 teachers and 600 schools. We run almost 60 outreach programmes, including summer schools, short courses, masterclasses, taster days and activities using UCL’s museums and collections. Our programmes are highly targeted, evidence-based and continuously evaluated for impact.

3.2 Such programmes can have a demonstrable impact on the attainment of individual students. Horizons is a scheme that encourages sustained engagement with UCL through a regular Year 10 and 11 Saturday School as well as a Summer School. Of the students enrolled onto the Horizons programme in 2016/17, 93% had no parental HE background, 58% were listed as currently in receipt of free school meals, 57% came from a household where one or both parents were registered unemployed and 81%

VAL0044

are from socio-economic groups 4-8. The latest evaluation suggests that students on the programme showed an improvement in their attainment levels between KS3 and GCSE. 99% of Horizons participants achieved 5+ A*-B grades in their GCSEs, and 74% of participants saw an improvement in at least one subject. We believe that these results show that UCL’s investment in pre-16 engagement helps to keep students on track and widens the pool of students in a position to apply to highly selective institutions. However, this is time-intensive work which must be carefully targeted to ensure maximum impact for a defined investment.

3.3 In August 2015, UCL joined Realising Opportunities (RO), a collaboration between research intensive universities. RO participants who are successful in gaining an offer from UCL receive a reduction in their offer of up to two grades. In October 2015, UCAS undertook analysis of applicant data for RO students. The results demonstrated that RO is robust in its dual targeting of high attaining students from disadvantaged backgrounds; provided evidence of elevated application, offer and entry rates for RO students applying to HE against a UCAS-identified control group; highlighted that RO seems to ‘neutralise’ background differences across the different measures of disadvantage, and suggests that RO participants are more successful at getting offers from research intensive universities. UCL is now developing its own alternative offer scheme. This will give students from underrepresented backgrounds the opportunity to receive a reduced offer from UCL on successful completion of an additional assessed element.

3.4 Alongside our work with individual target students, UCL also supports schools at a strategic level. UCL is the sole sponsor of the UCL Academy in Camden, a co-sponsor of Elutec in East London, and a Trustee of the University Schools Trust, which sponsors Royal Greenwich UTC and St Paul’s Way Trust School in East London. UCL also has strategic partnerships with City and Islington College (CANDI) and Newham Collegiate Sixth Form (NCS).

3.5 We consider that we have made positive steps towards improving access in recent years, and our retention figures are excellent, with only 3.5% of students leaving following year of entry. Students from POLAR 1 areas have a non-continuation rate of 0%. 23% of our students are from low income households (i.e. income of less than £16,190 per annum) against a benchmark of 15.7% (determined by our internal comparator data); 9.5% of our students have reported a disability, against a benchmark of 2.5%.

3.6 We are proud of our record on widening access, and agree that universities have clear responsibilities and an important role to play in making admissions accessible to all. However, there are other factors that influence whether students reach research-intensive universities, including the choices they make early in their school careers about programmes of study, and the careers advice they receive at school, as well as cultural factors that influence students’ aspirations. A 2015 Sutton Trust report indicates that the attainment gap reflects disparities between social groups in advanced cognitive skills development and notes the value of the cultural capital associated with professional parents. Further research by the same body quantifies the disparity between students from different social backgrounds in

VAL0044

terms of access to extra-curricular opportunities and additional tuition, for example.1

3.7 The IOE’s initial teacher education (ITE) provision contributes to our work to support attainment, by ensuring high quality teachers are placed in schools.

a. The IOE is the largest supplier of new teachers to London schools. In recent years we have prepared over 2,000 new teachers annually for primary and secondary (and post-compulsory) settings, working in partnership with over 600 schools and colleges. We are one of the largest School Direct providers (salaried and unsalaried routes), and have the largest Teach First cohort, in each case across primary and secondary phases.

b. We work to ensure that our students have a deep understanding of

urban schools and the strategies that contribute to success. It is our aim that each IOE student completes a placement in a school operating in challenging socio-economic circumstances. Underpinning all our ITE provision is coverage of social class, urban theory and equality of opportunity, themes which shape inclusion, diversity and educational impact for children.

c. Teach First has also made a significant impact in London. We share

Teach First’s vision of a future where no child’s educational success is limited by that child’s socio-economic circumstances. The emphasis placed by both organisations on social justice is well-documented. The IOE supported the introduction of Teach First in London from the outset and has continued to support its work. The IOE is now the sole Teach First provider in London.

3.8 UUK’s 2017 report on schools-university partnerships noted the need for

flexibility in determining the focus and objectives of these relationships and cautioned against the assumption that there is a direct correlation between particular university outreach and engagement activities and student outcomes.2 HEFCE’s research into the impact of academy sponsorship by universities shows that any growth in attainment is often linked to increased uptake of vocational qualifications in those schools, and demonstrates that progression rates to university, although increasing slowly, remain less than half of rates in non-university sponsored schools. 2016 UCAS data indicates that five times more students from POLAR 5 groups achieve ABB compared with students from POLAR 1 groups (6575 vs 1300), and at A*A*A*, POLAR 5 students are 15 x more likely to achieve these grades than POLAR 1 students (2755 vs 185). Our experience of sponsoring an academy school (the UCL Academy in Swiss Cottage, London) bears out these studies. Universities can add significant value to partner schools in terms of

1 Sutton Trust (2015). Family Background and Access to High ‘Status’ Universities. London: Sutton Trust; Jerrim (2017). ‘Extra Time: Private School Study and Out of School Study – New International Evidence’ London: Sutton Trust; Sutton Trust, (2014). Research Briefing: Extra-Curricular Inequality. London: Sutton Trust. 2 Universities UK (2017). Raising attainment through university-school engagement: the current landscape. London: Universities UK.

VAL0044

supporting the development of a culture of continuous learning, research-informed practice and by providing enrichment activities for students. To make a difference at the level of the individual student, a sustained programme of investment and 1:1 support is desirable – a level of investment that is not feasible at the scale necessary to be equitable across the student body.

4. Senior management pay in universities

4.1 The pay of senior management at UCL is determined by the Remuneration and Human Resources Strategy Committee, reporting to UCL’s Council, and the RHRSC consists almost exclusively of members of UCL’s Council. Their terms of reference provide a robust framework for ensuring that there is accountability and rigour in our remuneration of staff earning over £150k p.a.

4.2 UCL is a major employer (the largest in the London borough of Camden) and has a wide-ranging mission and reach, conducting world-leading research, facilitating knowledge exchange and transfer and educating over 38k students each year. Our income in the 2016-17 financial year was over £1.3bn, of which £530m represented research grant income, and £421m represented teaching income. The remuneration policy for senior management has been developed to recognise the scale and complexity of our endeavours and the levels of responsibility associated with the most senior roles.

5. Quality and effectiveness of teaching

5.1 UCL has the long-range ambition of becoming a world-leader in research-based education by 2034, as set out in our institutional strategy, and our 2016-21 Education Strategy captures the investment of resource in the diverse projects and initiatives we have in this area. We received a commendation from the Quality Assurance Agency for our Connected Curriculum framework for research-based education in our most recent HE Review (2016-17) and were awarded silver in the recent Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) process.

5.2 We welcome the principles behind the TEF, and particularly the commitment to ensuring that students are appropriately supported to make good choices about their studies. However, we note our concerns that the TEF, as currently configured, does not directly evaluate the quality of teaching. We question the extent to which this is possible in a paper-based exercise, but also whether the costs of a more comprehensive process would be proportionate to the burden and public expenditure involved. UUK has estimated the cost of the institutional exercise at £4.1m; a figure which will undoubtedly rise substantially as the process moves from institution to subject level)3. The recent changes to the TEF, and, in particular, the emphasis on graduate outcomes, are welcome, but do not address our concerns about the measurement of teaching excellence. The down-weighting of the National

3 Universities UK (2017). Review of the Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2: Process, Results and Next Steps. London: Universities UK.

VAL0044

Student Survey within the process has not been balanced by the introduction of measures that would allow for better evaluation of the quality of teaching.

5.3 There are clear benefits to students of study in a research-intensive context,

particularly with an eye to their future employability. The scope of roles in government, public administration, industry, and the health and education sectors, for example, will often require students to understand the possibilities and limits of research methodologies and outcomes. Graduates in highly-skilled employment will also be called upon frequently to marshal and present arguments, and to critique those of others, and, potentially, to commission research and to engage with universities directly.

5.4 High-quality teaching, particularly in a research-intensive university, requires

investment. We are not aware of any research that accurately captures the cost of teaching in a whole-institution context, and question whether this could be achieved with accuracy. The costs of education are inherently bound up with investment in staffing provision, particularly the remuneration of the research-active staff from whom our students learn, in resources such as library services, museums provision, in careers services, and in capital expenditure on laboratories, classrooms and other facilities. We are therefore concerned that recent government announcements that fees will not rise above £9,250 will have a detrimental effect on the quality of teaching we can offer, as our costs rise in line with inflation but our tuition fee income does not keep pace.

5.5 Universities must recognise the burden of debt that students and graduates

now bear and seek always to provide the best education, experience and opportunities that they can. Equally, it must be acknowledged that the costs of education will rise over time, and modest increases in tuition fees will be necessary if the UK’s universities are to remain world-leading. Brexit makes our position more pressing, as the fee income from international students may be substantially reduced if the UK’s exit from the EU does not include provision for continued freedom of movement for students.

5.6 We note that the current research base indicates that England’s move from a

low fee, low aid higher education funding system to a high fee, high aid one has been successful. Funding per head of student has been increased, halting a decline observed from the early 1990s.4 The system makes access more equitable beyond 18-year olds whilst offering protection for graduates with low incomes after graduation. The system also rebalances the contribution towards the cost of university towards those who benefit most in economic terms.

6. The role of the Office for Students

6.1 We welcome the emphasis on the quality of the student experience that the establishment of an ‘Office for Students’ implies. We also see some value in a

4 Murphy, Scott-Clayton and Wyness (2017). “Lessons from the end of free college in England”, Brookings Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol 2, #13. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

VAL0044

more streamlined regulatory body and, in particular, the link between the Office for Fair Access and the Office for Students.

6.2 However, we note concerns about the separation of the regulation of education and research, previously combined in HEFCE’s remit. The two are not separable in a research-intensive university, and there will need to continue to be some mechanism for ensuring that teaching regulation has an eye to developments in the research context, and vice versa. This will be key for the overall financial sustainability of the sector, to ensure that the twin missions of research intensive universities in particular continue to align, so that each enhances and facilitates the other.

6.3 Finally, we question whether it is right for the OfS to specifically have a remit

to promote competition between institutions, if competition is understood in a market sense. All universities have distinctive missions and areas of excellence; indeed, this diversity is one of the strengths of the sector. Students should be supported to identify the institution which is right for them as an individual, and this is determined by a complex interplay of geographical, cultural, intellectual and inter-personal factors. Competition based on price factors, or on TEF ratings, or bursary availability (for example) will mask the detail of course content, teaching methodologies, social opportunities and location that have a considerable bearing on students’ choices about where to study, with the result that students may be encouraged to make choices on the basis of categories that will not fully reflect the university experience in the round, or enable them to prioritise those aspects which matter most to them.

October 2017

VAL0021

Written Evidence submitted by UNISON Introduction 1. UNISON has nearly 350,000 members working in education, who provide a

wide range of essential professional support services from nursery through to university and beyond. Of these around 40,000 work in higher education institutions and 20,000 in further education. They work in professional, technical, managerial and all other support staff roles. UNISON has a critical interest in post-16 education, from individual learners in the workplace, through negotiating on learning with employers and developing sector wide skills strategies. UNISON’s wider membership of over 1.25 million public service workers are citizens who use and value education.

Executive summary Concerns expressed by learners about ‘value for money’ about their

degrees reflect diminishing labour market returns for graduates and deeper problems within the labour market.

UNISON’s own young members have expressed widespread concerns about debts, cost of living and their ability to find another job should they become unemployed.

UNISON has continued to warn that the prospect of tuition fee debt has put off some young people from the poorest backgrounds. They are the most likely to have had bad experiences of poverty and debt, face the greatest pressure to start early paid employment and least likely to have access to information about higher education options and the management of student debt payments. This is backed by new research from UCL which shows that the poorest young people have become increasingly averse to taking on higher education debt since 2002.

Consequences of government policy such as the abolition of means tested maintenance grants in favour of loans along with attacks on the Disabled Student Allowance, undermine efforts to increase participation from groups who would most benefit from higher education.

UNISON is deeply concerned by the experience of disconnection and alienation felt by BME learners. These findings are particularly concerning because young BME people are disproportionately likely to participate in higher education but then continue to experience disproportionately

VAL0021

poorer outcomes within higher education and then in the labour market too. This is backed by a recent survey by the accommodation company Unite students

Consequences of government policy such as the abolition of means tested maintenance grants in favour of loans along with attacks on the Disabled Student Allowance undermine efforts to increase participation from groups who would most benefit from higher education.

UNISON is also concerned about decreasing opportunities for mature and non-traditional students. There have been successive drops in the numbers of part-time students. Concerns around future career prospects, labour market outcomes from additional qualifications and stagnating pay and progression are significant concerns to this cohort of learners.

UNISON has a particular interest in improving governance within FE/HE. There should be greater representation of the wider workforce in decision making bodies, particularly in respect of decisions on the remuneration of Vice Chancellors and other senior managers. Other staff have not seen a similar investment in their salaries, and have seen their pay squeezed. The last time they had an increase in salary in line with inflation was 2009.

Many higher education institutions are using the cuts in the teaching grant and the uncertainty caused by the increase in fees as justification for reducing professional support staff numbers, lowering pay and conditions of service, as well as increasing the use of zero hours contracts and outsourcing. Professional support staff make a vital difference to the ‘student experience’ at university and play a key role in helping HEIs reverse decreasing satisfaction amongst BME and learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

‘Consumer choice’ and tuition fees 2. The Education Select Committee has drawn attention to the findings of the

2017 National Student Survey, which shows that despite improvements in perceptions of teaching quality, 34% of respondents felt that their degrees were ‘poor value’ for money. This reflects what young members in UNISON have told us about their concerns about the future. A survey carried out by UNISON of more than 1,400 young UNISON members in March 2013 showed widespread concerns about future heavy debts, worries about the cost of living and their ability to find another job should they become unemployed1.

1 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/youth-failed-more-9-10-1850319

VAL0021

3. Tuition fees were introduced by the last Labour government in Westminster

to fund increased participation. The government’s intended aim was to create a more educated workforce which drew upon a wider composition of UK society. As larger numbers of young people entered higher education, the numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds did indeed increase.

4. While others have heralded these statistics as proving the success of fees,

UNISON has continued to warn that the prospect of tuition fee debt has put off some young people from the poorest backgrounds. They are the most likely to have had bad experiences of poverty and debt, face the greatest pressure to start early paid employment and least likely to have access to information about higher education options and the management of student debt payments.

5. New evidence supports UNISON’s view. Recent UCL research suggests that “lower class students are more likely to display debt averse attitudes than upper-class students in 2015 and this disparity appears to have grown since 2002.2” The report concludes that “lower-class students are still far more likely than students from other social classes to be deterred from planning to enter higher education because of fear of debt…Debt aversion seems more likely to deter anticipated higher education participation among lower-class students in 2015 than in 2002.3” A recent Unite Students survey also showed that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds had to cut back on spending and suffered more financial difficulties.4

6. Given that a degree is now desired by many employers even for jobs that do

not make full use of those skills, increasing levels of participation only tell part of the story. As the Higher Education Commission argues, the English system is “the worst of both worlds”. The Government is funding HE by writing off student debt, as opposed to directly investing in teaching grants. This has created a system where the Government is investing, but not getting any credit for it, damaging the perception of the public value

2 p20 Callender, C. & Mason. G ‘Does student loan debt deter Higher Education participaton? New evidence from England LLAKES Research Paper 58 UCL Institute of Education (2017)

3 p27 ibid

4 http://www.unite-group.co.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/everyone-in-report.pdf

VAL0021

associated with higher education”5. Analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded that 73% of graduates will not repay their debt in full, compared to just 25% under the old system.6

7. A 2014 Which? report suggested that the impact of market based reforms in

England have yet to be fully realised.7 While reforms were supposed to increase student choice in reality it has been restricted. The nature of the current labour market and the rise of ‘credentialism’ – the manner in which degrees from different universities have been used by employers as a way of differentiating between equally well qualified candidates, has meant that education as a ‘prestige’ good has been reinforced. There is a widespread view held by those with knowledge of education that the labour market returns for degrees from certain institutions (often categorised as the Russell Group) is higher than others. Whether it is the advantage conferred by elite universities or pre-existing social advantages, it is clear that working class and BME groups who gain tertiary qualifications still experience labour market disadvantages in pay and progression compared to others. Furthermore, it is becoming clearer that the graduate premium is shrinking and becoming increasingly differentiated depending on the type of degree taken.

8. Confidence that a degree will lead to a brighter and more prosperous future mitigates fears about debt. However, this could be significantly affected if

there is a perception that graduate premium returns could diminish in the future. This is particularly relevant as wages in the UK continue to stagnate and relative poverty increases. With the prospect of further negative economic and labour market outcomes when the UK leaves the EU, students could be forgiven for having pessimistic feelings about future prospects.

9. Analysis by the Institute of Fiscal studies concluded that while students from poorer backgrounds are less likely to participate in tertiary education than students from richer backgrounds, the socio-economic gap develops much earlier in the education system. However the consequences become starker by the time students enter, or do not participate in further and higher education. The study concludes that “students look forward when making decisions about what qualifications to attempt at ages 16 and 18 and indeed when deciding how much effort to put into school work. If disadvantaged pupils feel that Higher Education is ‘not for people like them’, then it may be

5 p10 Higher Education Commission: ‘Too Good to Fail: The financial sustainability of Higher Education in England’ (2014)

6 IFS: ‘Estimating the public cost of student loans’ (2014)

7 Cited in Universities UK: ‘Quality, equity, sustainability: the future of higher education regulation’ (2015) p25

VAL0021

that their achievements in school simply reflects anticipated barriers to participation in tertiary education”.8

10. Consequences of government policy such as the abolition of means tested

maintenance grants in favour of loans along with attacks on the Disabled Student Allowance, undermine efforts to increase participation from groups who would most benefit from higher education. Additionally OECD analysis has shown that “a person whose parents do not have a university-level degree is less likely to pursue a tertiary education than on average across the countries that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills.”9 In the UK, “a person with tertiary-educated parents is more than six times (6.4 times) as likely to participate in tertiary education as someone whose parents have not attained upper secondary education (the average is 4.5 times). About half of 20-34 year-olds in England and Northern Ireland with tertiary-educated parents are tertiary students themselves, while fewer than one in ten 20-34 year-olds who have at least one parent who has not attained upper secondary education is a tertiary student.”

11. UNISON is deeply concerned by the experience of disconnection and

alienation felt by BME learners. A range of factors are involved, including many invisible barriers that only become revealed when students from non-traditional backgrounds are exposed to them. This includes a lack of appropriate pastoral care, the experience of overt and covert racism as well as the pressure placed on ethnic minority students to overachieve educationally in order to improve their futures (‘work twice as hard and be twice as good’). Some of these pressures can be seen in the data which shows that young BME people are less likely to participate in higher education but then continue to experience disproportionately poorer outcomes within higher education and then in the labour market too. The discontent picked up by the National Student Survey is another strong indicator that this is a significant problem that post-16 education policy should tackle. The Unite Students survey shows that Black and Asian Students are significantly less satisfied with their course than White or Chinese students. An academic workforce that is unrepresentative of the student body as well as the wider UK population is also an important factor. The discomfort felt by BME students should be examined in the same way that all examinations of institutional racism have been – holistically. The public sector has had a long history of conducting ‘equality audits’ which

8 Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman and Vignoles ‘Widening participation in Higher Education’ Institute for Fiscal Studies (2010) p20

9 p4 https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/United%20Kingdom-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf

VAL0021

have proved to be a valuable first step in exposing hidden patterns of discrimination, thus enabling more effective action.

12. While public debate around higher education overwhelmingly focuses on

young people the importance of life-long learning and opportunities for mature students should not be an afterthought. If higher Education is to live up to the social and economic aspirations placed upon it, opportunities for mature and non-traditional students should be increasing, not decreasing. We have now seen successive drops in the numbers of part-time students, with a 61% decline in part-time learners in English HE since 2010-11.10 The significant drop in older learners in particular, is particularly marked:11 Concerns around future career prospects, labour market outcomes from additional qualifications and stagnating pay and progression would all be of significant concerns to this cohort of learners.

Governance & the wider workforce 13. UNISON has a particular interest in improving governance within FE/HE.

UNISON welcomes the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, which seeks to modernise higher education governance and increase the involvement of staff and trade unions at a court level and in elections of chairs of court. There should be greater representation of the wider workforce in decision making bodies, particularly around decisions on the remuneration of Vice Chancellors and other senior managers. UNISON is disappointed that the OfS does not include a representative from the wider HE workforce. At the House of Commons stages of the Higher Education and Research Act, UNISON supported an amendment by Wes Streeting MP which asked that at least one of the ordinary members of the OfS has experience of representing or promoting the interests of employees in higher education. UNISON also supported amendments by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara at the Lords stages of the Act, which would have ensured wider consultation with HE staff.

14. The shift of the burden of payment for HE from the public purse to individual

students, is going to mean that HEIs will be expected to provide a very different ‘customer experience’ – with students demanding more rights as consumers, making more exacting demands - and making more complaints. The quality of the ‘student experience’ will come under much greater scrutiny and the role of support workers will be even more important than

10 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/analysis/HEinEngland/undergraduate/parttime/

11 http://blog.hefce.ac.uk/2017/03/03/what-does-the-decline-in-part-time-degrees-mean-for-lifelong-learning/

VAL0021

before. Professional support staff believe that too many employers do not realise how important they are until they are not there. Cleaning staff are often the first point of contact for live-in students who are having difficulties and need someone to talk to. Library staff are more vital than ever as students demand longer opening hours and more access to information.

15. Many higher education institutions are using the cuts in the teaching grant

and the uncertainty caused by the increase in fees as justification for reducing professional support staff numbers, lowering pay and conditions of service, as well as increasing the use of zero hours contracts and outsourcing. UNISON members in higher education, particularly in England and the students for whom they provide services, have already experienced the impact of private provision in the sector.

16. In institutions where support services have been privatised or outsourced, basic employment conditions have been eroded, with lower pay and inferior terms and conditions such as sick pay, maternity leave and pensions. This has a knock on effect in the wider local economy. This is not only a short sighted approach, it also sits uneasily with UNISON Freedom of Information (FOI) research that found that some of the universities paying the highest wages to vice chancellors had the largest number of low paid or casualised staff. Many of these institutions have thousands of low paid service workers on the same campuses and in the same offices, experiencing in-work poverty and relying on Government tax credits.

17. There has been substantial debate in the media and in universities across

the UK about the salaries of vice chancellors and the significant increase in the number of HE staff paid in excess of £100k per year. According to the analysis, on average vice-chancellor pay has gone up by 15% (7% in real terms) in five years; while mainstream academic staff have seen real term salaries drop t over the same period. The findings show that for those institutions where there was no change in leadership in 2010/11 or 2015/16, vice-chancellors on average saw their total package - including wages, pension and benefits - rise from nearly £242,000 in 2010/11 to more than £278,000 in 2015/16.

18. This increase does not appear to be linked to innovation in the job role.

UNISON is unclear how such increases show ‘value for money’, particularly as Universities have been generating significant surpluses in recent years.

19. Investments in buildings have seen universities taking out long term financial products, banking on sustained and continued growth in student numbers and increases in tuition fees. The uncertainty of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and the government cap on tuition fees are having a worrying impact on the financial future of the sector. .

VAL0021

20. The large salaries of vice chancellors and senior managers cause low morale

amongst staff. Most staff have seen their pay significantly squeezed as the last time they had an increase in line with inflation was 2009. UNISON has consistently campaigned for uplifts for all staff to salaries, particularly for the lowest paid. Currently only a small number of HEI’s are Accredited Living Wage employers, and UNISON is campaigning for all UK Universities to become accredited. This would have a significant impact on the local economies as many professional support staff lives in the locality.

October 2017

VAL0029

Written Evidence submitted by the Universities and College Employers Association 1. Executive summary

1.1 The Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) is a

membership body funded by subscriptions from 163 HEIs in the UK (in addition to 8 sector associate members). UCEA’s submission to the Committee covers senior management pay in universities and quality and effectiveness of teaching. We also refer Committee members to the submissions from Universities UK, CUC and GuildHE which cover the full range of value for money issues within the sector.

Senior management pay in universities

1.2 There were just over 3,000 senior managers in higher education in 2015-16 representing 0.8% of the total substantive workforce and 1.5% of total sector expenditure. The largest group of senior staff in HEIs is senior academic which includes all professors (18,580) and academic managers.

1.3 Recent coverage of the sector has tended to use a figure of £280,000 as the average ‘salary’ of a Vice-Chancellor in the UK but this figure is over-stated because it includes employer pension contributions. The two publicly available sources for the average head of institution salary in 2015-16 state this as £246,149 (THE) and £229,300 (HESA).

1.4 Figures for HoI and senior staff pay rises are also generally presented against just the base uplift to the national pay spine. In recent years a majority of staff have been eligible for pay progression which augments the average pay growth for non-senior staff by 1.5 percentage points.

1.5 The sector-level pay ratio between heads of institution and median employee pay was 6.5:1 in 2016 which has increased from 6.3:1 in 2008. This sector-level pay ratio (and those in HEIs) remains broadly in line with those seen across the public sector and far below those seen in the private sector.

The quality and effectiveness of teaching

1.6 The sector has a diverse range of staff that lead and support the delivery of teaching and learning in the sector. This submission focuses on the diversity of employment practices in the sector and trends in different types of contracts in use to underpin the quality of teaching and the student experience.

VAL0029

1.7 Looking at total staff resources devoted to teaching in HE, 76% of teaching staff are employed on open-ended/permanent contracts. Atypical/casual staff, which include those staff who work for short-periods and/or with a high degree of flexibility (including some on variable or zero hour contracts) comprise 6% of the total FTE.

We trust that the Education Select Committee will find use in the information provided in making its assessment and drawing conclusions from the range of submissions we expect it will receive. 2. Introduction

2.1. UCEA is a membership body funded by subscriptions from 163 HEIs

in the UK (in addition to 8 sector associate members). Our purpose is to support our member organisations in delivering excellent and world-leading higher education (HE) and research by representing their interests as employers and facilitating their work in delivering effective employment and workforce strategies. UCEA acts as the employer representative for the 148 HEIs that take part in multi-employer bargaining on the value of the HE pay spine through the Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff (JNCHES).

2.2. UCEA’s submission to the Committee covers senior management pay in universities and quality and effectiveness of teaching as they are relevant to our role within the sector. Our submission is primarily focused on the provision of facts and evidence that the Committee can use in making its judgements rather than offering an assessment of value for money. We refer Committee members to the submissions from Universities UK and GuildHE which cover the full range of value for money issues within the sector. Although this submission covers senior management pay in universities, UCEA plays no direct role in determining senior salaries. We understand that the Committee of University Chairs will be making a submission to the Committee and this will cover issues relating to governance and remuneration decisions relating to senior staff in higher education.

2.3. A further value for money consideration is that most Chairs and

independent members of University Councils receive no remuneration with respect to their roles. Chairs or non-executive directors of equivalent sized private sector organisations are often well rewarded and indeed the same is the case in many public sector organisations such as NHS Foundation Trusts. This is in an era where increasing obligations are being placed on Higher Education governing bodies.

VAL0029

3. Senior management pay in universities

3.1. In assessing the pay of senior managers in universities it is important

to understand how pay levels are determined in higher education and the levels and trends in pay in the wider workforce.

3.2. The New JNCHES negotiations cover base pay increases for staff on the single pay spine from point 2 (£15,417) to point 51 (£60,410) at 148 participating HEIs. The pay spine points are used by each HEI in their grading structure and these structures will vary by institution. HEIs in London either pay a London allowance or use higher pay spine points that incorporate a consolidated London allowance. Point 51 is the professorial minimum and all salaries above this level are determined by HEIs. The approach taken to determining senior staff pay varies by HEI depending on its size and the number and type of staff that are included in that group. As Table 1 shows, there were just over 3,000 senior managers in higher education in 2015-16 representing 0.8% of the total substantive workforce. The largest group of senior staff in HEIs is senior academic which includes all professors (18,580) and academic managers.

Table 1: Senior staff in higher education, 2015-16 Total staff Proportion

of all staff Proportion of salary bill

Proportion of total sector expenditure

Senior managers

3,070 0.8% 2.8% 1.5%

Senior academics

23,750 5.9% 15.6% 8.5%

Non-senior staff

374,630 93.3% 81.6% 44.5%

Total 410,450 100% 100% 54.6% Source: HESA. Average pay for heads of institutions

3.3. The most common focus of senior pay in the HE sector is the head of institution (typically Vice-Chancellor or Principal) who is usually the highest paid employee in an HEI. Recent coverage of the sector has tended to use a figure of £280,000 as the average ‘salary’ of a Vice-Chancellor in the UK but this figure is over-stated because it includes employer pension contributions which are not salary and which all academic employees receive in proportion to their salary. Any comparison of this figure to other public figures should also take account of the value of their pension contributions.

VAL0029

3.4. There are two public sources of data which provide information on the salary levels: Times Higher Education (THE) and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). The 2017 THE analysis, conducted by consultancy Grant Thornton, is based on annual accounts for 2015-16 and finds an average annual salary of £246,149. HESA data for the same year show an average (mean) basic salary of £229,300 and a median of £235,990.1 As stated, UCEA plays no role in determining the level of these salaries, but we do have a concern that any judgements, analysis or comparisons make use of correct or like-for-like data.

3.5. Figures for HoI and senior staff pay rises are also generally presented against just the base uplift to the national pay spine. The uplift to the pay spine is one part of the increase an individual might receive in a given year. In recent years a majority of staff have been eligible for pay progression typically worth an additional 3% increase – this typically augments the average pay growth for non-senior staff by 1.5 percentage points.

4. Overall pay levels in HE

4.1. Although the sector has gone through a period of pay restraint similar

to the public sector, it is not subject to the public sector pay policy. Overall, pay remains competitive with the wider economy, as can be seen from UCEA’s annual review of pay benchmarks. The median basic full-time salary was £36,672 in 2015-16 with academic staff below the level of professors receiving £46,414 at the median – Table 2. The median basic salary for professors was £72,263. Since these figures were released there have been headline base pay awards of 1.1% and 1.7%.

Table 2: Median pay by staff group, 2015-16 Staff group Median full-time basic

salary Professors £72,263 Academic staff (excluding professors) £46,414 All staff £36,672

Source: HESA.

4.2. Based on median full-time earnings, HE teaching professionals have a healthy premium over secondary and FE teaching professionals which has remained consistent since 2009 – Table 3. The main occupations for other staff are also in line or ahead of comparators in the wider economy as shown in figure 1.

1 The lower HESA figure is due to the fact that the THE includes the sum of salaries where two individuals have been in office in the same year whereas HESA only reports the full-year salary for the head of institution as at the survey census date.

VAL0029 Table 3: Median full-time earnings, teaching professionals, 2016 Occupational group Median full-

time earnings FE teaching professionals £35,827 Secondary teaching professionals £38,205 HE teaching professionals £49,197

Source: ONS. Figure 1: Median full-time earnings by occupational group, selected occupations, 2016

Source: ONS. 5. Pay ratios in higher education

5.1. The higher education sector was covered by the Hutton Review of

Fair Pay in the Public Sector in 2010-11. UCEA supported CUC in responding to the Review’s evidence request including pay ratios based on the ratio between the heads of institution and median full-time pay for all employees. Figure 1 updates Chart 2.A on page 33 of the Hutton Review Final Report which used UCEA and ONS data. At that point in time the pay ratio in the sector appeared broadly in line with other public sector and public service employers which were typically between 5.5:1 to 7.5:1 in 2008 with the exception of further education. As shown in Figure 1, the pay ratio has increased slightly since 2007/08 from 6.3:1 to 6.5:1.2

2 Using the HESA basic salary data quoted in sections 1 and 2 gives a similar ratio of 6.4:1.

13.25

13.95

19.50

26.91

8.04

16.42

8.04

17.85

10.40

13.34

18.85

20.55

7.20

14.58

7.43

14.57

5 10 15 20 25 30

Secretarial and related occupations

Science, Engineering and ProductionTechnicians

Natural and social science professionalsn.e.c

Managers

Kitchen and catering assistants (part-time)

Information Technology Technicians

Cleaners and domestics (part-time)

Business and related research professionals

Earnings per hour (£s)

Not-HE

HE sector

VAL0029 Figure 2: Pay ratio trend in higher education, head of institution to median full-time employee pay

Sources: UCEA, ONS. Head of institution figure based on the median total pay of heads of institution in higher education. Employee pay based on full-time weekly gross earnings from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.

5.2. This sector-level pay ratio (and those in HEIs) remains broadly in line with those seen across the public sector and far below those seen in the private sector. For example, the ONS’s analysis of pay ratios finds that the ratio between median earnings and the highest earner in the civil service is 11.1:1, with individual departments and agencies including the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence at or above 7:1.3 Our analysis of NHS pay data4 found that the ratio is 7.3:1 and in local governments5 it is 6.0:1. In the FTSE100 the average pay ratio between average staff pay and the CEO was 129:1 in 2016 (CIPD, 2017).

6. The quality and effectiveness of teaching: Teaching contracts in higher education 6.1. The sector has a diverse range of staff that lead and support the

delivery of teaching and learning in the sector. This submission does not seek to cover the areas of teacher training and accreditation which are significant and will be covered by other sector responses. Instead we wish to focus on the diversity of employment practices in the sector and trends in different types of contracts in use to underpin the quality of teaching and the student experience.

Contract profile

3 www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/datasets/medianpayannexb 4 Based on data from NHS Digital. 5 Based on the average of ratios reported in annual reports from 128 local authorities.

5.66.3 6.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

VAL0029

6.2. Across the sector there were 118,700 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff on teaching contracts in 2015-16 with 76% on teaching and research contracts and 24% on teaching-focused contracts. As teaching and research staff do not spend 100% of their time teaching we have weighted these as 40% FTE teaching assuming a basic 40/40/20 model.6 This changes the split to 44% teaching-focused and 56% teaching and research. Based on this re-weighted FTE, Table 4 shows that 76% of teaching staff are employed on open-ended contracts. Atypical staff, which include those staff who work for short-periods and/or with a high degree of flexibility (including some on variable or zero hour contracts) comprise 6% of the total FTE. This figure has been falling in recent years in terms of both FTE and total number of contracts with the atypical academic FTE falling from 3.7% of all academic work in 2011-12 to 2.9% in 2015-16.

Table 4: Contract diversity of teaching in higher education, weighted FTE, 2015-16

Teaching-focused

Teaching and research Total

Full-time Open-ended/Permanent 17% 47% 64%

Fixed-term 4% 3% 7% Atypical 0% 0% 0%

Part-time Open-ended/Permanent 7% 5% 12%

Fixed-term 10% 1% 11% Atypical 6% 0% 6% Total 44% 56% 100%

Source: HESA. FTE for teaching and research is based on 40% of total FTE. Fixed-term and casual employment

6.3. HEIs aim to be employers of choice in their local areas and are committed to good employment relations both individually and collectively. The sector has relatively high trade union density at 27% (2013) with higher density among academic staff (34%). Employment practices related to staff employed on fixed-term and on casual contracts have received significant attention in recent years. However, consideration of these staff in the sector goes back much further. In June 2002, UCEA and the five main HE trade unions7 agreed guidance on fixed-term and casual employment for HEIs which included principles for the employment of fixed-term and casual staff. In particular, the

6 This assumes 40% time on research, 40% on teaching and 20% on management and administration. 7 GMB, UCU, UNISON, Unite and EIS

VAL0029

guidance recognised that indefinite contracts are the general form of employment relationship and noted that there should be objectively justifiable reasons for using casual contracts. The guidance gave the following examples:

the post requires specialist expertise or recent experience not already available within the institution in the short term;

to cover staff absence as appropriate; to provide input from specialist practitioners; where the student or other business demand can be clearly

demonstrated as particularly uncertain; and where there is no reasonably foreseeable prospect of short-term

funding being renewed nor other external or internal funding being available or becoming available.

6.4 This guidance was reviewed and reissued following a joint working group

with the trade unions in 2014-15 which published its report in 2015.8 The guidance continues to be relevant to the sector and recent work by UCEA to understand the types of individual covered by such contracts found that the typical groups covered by such contracts include:

Temporary teaching cover for permanent academic staff who are

undertaking research or who are absent for other reasons (long-term sickness, sabbaticals, maternity or parental leave).

PhD candidates and post-doctorate researchers being provided with opportunities to contribute to teaching and learning, which is valued as part of their career development.

Specialist teaching in specific areas such as architecture, law, music or art where professionals from industry are required (including for professional body accreditation of the course) to deliver particular classes or studio work within a course, e.g. civil engineers, oil industry experts, barristers or practising artists.

Language tutors in certain circumstances, for example where the level of demand for a minority language cannot be predicted ahead of students enrolling.

Teaching input where a permanent contract is not appropriate and usually where the breadth of the full academic role is not required, for example in summer schools.

6.5. The different profile of these examples is reflected in the qualifications and contract level profile of these staff as compared to those on open-ended contracts. As Figure 3 shows, 60% of staff on open-ended contracts hold a doctorate compared to 27% of part-time fixed-term and casual staff (comprising 10% of FTE). This reflects the examples above given that industry professionals are less likely to hold doctorate-level qualifications and PhD candidates would not yet hold that

8 www.ucea.ac.uk/en/publications/index.cfm/njhpcwgr

VAL0029

qualification. Figure 4 shows that these staff are also typically employed at different contract levels within the sector. For example, 74% of staff on open-ended contracts are employed at senior lecturer level (J0) or above compared to 15% of part-time fixed-term and casual staff.

Figure 3: Qualification by terms of employment, 2015-16

Source: HESA. Open-ended includes both part-time and full-time staff. Figure 4: Contract level by terms of employment, 2015-16

Source: HESA. Open-ended includes both part-time and full-time staff. International comparisons

6.6. The use of fixed-term and casual faculty in the UK has been compared in the media to trends in the US and Australia, despite workforce profiles and trends being very different in these countries. Between 1989 and 2011 the proportion of staff employed on fixed-term and casual contracts in Australia increased from 30% of the FTE workforce to 57%. Figure 5 uses the same weighted FTE approach as Table 4 with teaching and research contracts weighted at 40% of FTE. In 2012, 43% of teaching FTE was employed through casual contracts

27%

37%

4%

11%

15%

60%

19%

3%

6%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Doctorate

Other Higher Degree

PGCE

Other Postgraduate qualification (includingprofessional)

First Degree

Part-time fixed-term and casual

Open-ended

4%

2%

9%

56%

24%

16%

22%

36%

18%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

F1 Professor

I0 Senior/principal lecturer, Reader, PrincipalResearch fellow

J0 Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Senior ResearchFellow

K0 Lecturer, Research fellow, Researcher (seniorresearch assistant), Teaching fellow

L0 Research assistant, Teaching assistant

Part-time fixed-termand casualOpen-ended

VAL0029

compared to 6% in the UK while 40% was employed on ongoing contracts compared to 76% in the UK.

Figure 5: FTE teaching staff weighted for teaching workload by contract type (%), Australia, 1989-2012

Source: LH Martin Institute and AHEIA, 2014.

6.7. Comparisons with the US are more difficult given the tenure system, however the headline figures from the US indicate a much different faculty profile. Data from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) show that 40% of all faculty appointments are part-time compared to 29% FTE in the UK.9 Including other non-tenured (fixed-term) positions and graduate student employees increases this figure to 71% with the remaining 29% in tenured or tenure track positions. In the UK 76% of academic FTE on open-ended contracts10 which is the closest comparison to tenure-track/tenured position.

6.8. UCEA understands from HEFCE that extensive analysis was done earlier in 2017 for the Department for Education that looked at the nature of the contractual profile for academic staff in English institutions against measures of teaching quality. We would hope that the analysis and findings may shortly be made available.

7. Concluding remarks

7.1. This submission to the Education Select Committee provides facts and figures related to pay in higher education and the contractual profile

9 www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts 10 There is no tenure in the UK.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Actual Casual

Fixed term

Ongoing

VAL0029

of the academic workforce who deliver teaching. This submission complements responses from Universities UK and GuildHE which focus substantively on value for money issues in the sector. We trust that the Education Select Committee will find use in the information provided in making its assessment and drawing conclusions from the range of submissions we expect it will receive.

October 2017

VAL0043

  

Written Evidence submitted by Universities Scotland Key points Scottish higher education is a high performing sector, delivering a strong

return on the public investment in terms of student outcomes, impactful research and levels of engagement with the business community. Universities lever in £2.4 billion of investment using the £1.1 billion of investment from the Scottish Government, and universities contribute £7.1 billion of gross value added and 1.6 per cent of all Scottish jobs.

The Auditor General concluded that teaching and research in Scottish universities is under-funded in her 2016 report. Audit Scotland found teaching funded at 94 per cent of cost (now more likely to be 90 per cent) and research funded at 86 per cent.

The Auditor General found Scottish higher education institutions to have exceeded their efficiency targets but cautioned about diminishing returns in efficiency saying there is: “less potential for the same level of efficiency savings…”

Introduction 1. Universities Scotland welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence on the

value for money offered by higher education in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s policy of free higher education for Scottish and EU-domiciled undergraduate students means that Scottish higher education operates in a different context to that of higher education institutions in England. However, we are acutely aware of our responsibility to deliver value for money for the public investment we receive.

2. Our response follows the format of the Committee’s questions however, we feel there are additional and important aspects of universities’ activity that deliver value for money and are not covered by the questions. Given the significant differences between the funding models for higher education in England and Scotland, we make some initial points to address both of these things.

3. Universities Scotland is the representative body of Scotland’s 19 higher education institutions. Whilst higher education is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there are some matters that directly affect Scottish higher education, including research funding through UK Research and Innovation and immigration policy that are reserved. Other policy issues that relate only to English or rest of UK universities, like the fee regime in English universities, can have indirect effects on Scottish higher education.

Delivering value for money

VAL0043

  

4. Universities are a major industry in their own right and have a significant role in the creation of jobs. In Scotland, universities deliver £7.1 billion of gross value added to the economy and contribute £1.5 billion towards Scotland’s total exports.1

5. Scotland’s universities directly employ 42,900 people which equates to 1.6% of all employment in Scotland2 and indirectly support another 142,000 jobs.3

6. We have an important role to play in Scottish society and culture. As an example, over 1.5 million people attended free exhibitions, museums, public lectures and arts performances put on by universities across Scotland in the last year.

7. We recognise the significant public investment that goes into university teaching, research and capital and we are proud of the rates of return we deliver. Scotland’s higher education sector received a total income of £3.5 billion in 2014/15, of which £2.4 billion is levered in from external and competitively-won sources off the back of £1.1 billion of Scottish Government investment. 4 When it comes to the university estate, universities return £5 for every £1 of investment in capital.

8. On the research side of our business, we are highly effective in making the public pound go so much further by levering in direct external investment. Scottish HE won over £1.5 billion of research funding and contracts from outside Scotland. 86 per cent of research in Scotland’s universities, submitted to the 2014 REF, was found to have ‘outstanding’ or ‘very considerable’ impact.

9. Universities have a major role in delivering innovation and supporting existing business to innovate. Scottish universities work with 18,000 business every year and we have the highest level of spin-out company creation outside of London.

10. We are ambitious to do more and have delivered a programme of 12 actions over the last two years under the #business-minded heading to make it even easier for business to engage with us through streamlined process’ and greater consistency in the experience.5 A new, single platform to reach over 1,200 pieces of university equipment and facilities has seen business use increase by 271 per cent. Scotland’s 19 universities now have a shared set of principles for spin-out formation and a set of five common contracts for use on high-

                                                            1 Universities Scotland (2017) Going for Growth 2 Oxford Economics (2017) The Economic Impact of Universities in 2014/15. 3 Biggar Economics (2016). 4 HESA Finance Record 2014/15. 5 Universities Scotland (2017) Business-minded. 

VAL0043

  

volume innovation interactions with Scottish businesses. Universities meet have bi-annual strategic communication meetings with business leaders involved in the eight Innovation Centres and have recently reviewed business need with many of Scotland’s Industry Leadership Groups.

The funding context in Scotland and HE efficiency 11. Devolution has led to clear differences in the funding model for higher

education north and south of the border. The decision on how to fund teaching in universities will always be a political one. Our interest lies in ensuring that we are funded at sustainable and competitive levels. The Scottish sector faces a number of sustainability challenges:

12. An independent assessment of funding in higher education in Scotland by Audit

Scotland in 2016 found that Scottish universities recovered only 94.2 per cent of the full economic cost of publicly funded teaching in 2014/15.6 This figure includes the teaching of Scottish and EU students, as funded by the Scottish Government, but also fee-paying students from the rest of the UK so is likely to understate the under-funding of Scottish and EU students. Further, as the teaching grant has received further real terms cuts since 2014/15, we estimate that this figure is now around 90 per cent of cost.

13. Our research faces funding challenges too. Audit Scotland reported that

university funding from all sources covered 84.8 per cent of the full economic cost of undertaking the research in 2014/15. This means that the funding received was less than the full costs incurred. Funding from the UK Research Councils covered 74.3 per cent of its full economic cost, and UK charity funding covered 65 per cent.

14. The Audit Scotland report on HE funding in Scotland noted the sector’s strong performance on efficiencies remarking that: “…bodies were required to achieve three per cent efficiency savings each year. The university sector reported savings of £200 million, which exceeded this target... As organisations with high staff costs, it will become more difficult for universities to make the same scale of efficiency savings in the future…” It further stated: “the gap between the target sustainability surplus to cover long-term costs for the sector and the actual surplus made in 2014/15 was 2.5 per cent, or 3.9 per cent excluding RDEC. This means the sector, as a whole, is not generating enough surplus to enable universities to invest in, and maintain their estates, in the medium to longer term. This is combined with increasing pressures from rising costs,

                                                            6 Audit Scotland (2016) Audit of Higher Education in Scotland’s Universities

VAL0043

  

possible reductions in public sector funding and less potential for the same level of efficiency savings in support services.”7

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

15. Graduate destinations are very positive with Scotland’s universities delivering the highest average starting salary in the UK of £22,500 within six months of graduation. This summer’s data showed that 91 per cent of graduates from Scottish universities were in positive destinations after six months and of those starting work immediately upon graduation, 72 per cent are in graduate-level jobs.8

16. Employment is one of many successful graduate destinations. Graduate entrepreneurship is a growing and shared focus in Scotland. There is now a culture of enterprise on campus that is producing results. The number of student start-ups coming from our universities increased by 28 per cent in two years, beating the target of 25% that we set ourselves in Making it Happen a year ahead of schedule.

17. Whilst destinations data is of clear interest, care needs to be given to avoid over-reliance on starting-salaries as a marker of value for money from higher education. Salary is not the only measure of the value of a career. Universities educate nurses, teachers, social workers, those with early-stage portfolio careers in the creative industries and a number of other professionals who play a vital role in our society but which are not highly rewarded in terms of remuneration.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

18. Scotland’s universities want a fully diverse and inclusive student population in our universities; one that reflects every aspect of the communities, country and world that they are part of. Widening access (or widening participation as it is often referred) is fully devolved to Scotland and the key metrics used to assess performance are different. Scotland uses the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and comparisons to other parts of the UK using UK-wide metrics are unreliable.9

19. Currently 14 per cent of Scottish-domiciled entrants to Scottish higher education institutions are from the 20 per cent most deprived data zones

                                                            7 Audit Scotland (2016) Audit of Higher Education in Scotland’s Universities 8 HESA (2017) Destinations of Leavers of Higher Education. 9 Scotland is often compared to England on its performance on widening access using POLAR3, state school indictors or NS-SEC. However, these comparisons are unreliable and unhelpful. POLAR3 does not work for Scotland at all and its use has been discontinued for Scotland by HESA and UCAS. A significant minority of Scottish higher education is delivered in further education colleges which is not captured in cross0-UK comparisons. SIMD covers seven domains of deprivation. The measure was updated in 2016. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD

VAL0043

  

(SIMD20).10 Scotland’s universities are making progress. This summer, an additional 470 SIMD20 applicants were placed in Scottish institutions by Higher results day. This is a 13% increase compared to 2016. However, we share an ambition to see a faster rate of progress.

20. The First Minister has set a target that by 2030, 20 per cent of entrants should

be from SIMD20. Universities will play a full part in achieving this ambitious goal. It has the best chance of success if Scotland takes a holistic approach to access at all levels of education and society and is successful in closing the attainment gap in schools. At present, only 42.7 per cent of school-leavers from the most deprived 20 per cent of areas achieved one or more Higher qualification (or equivalent) compared to 81.2 per cent of school-leavers from the least deprived 20 per cent of areas.11

21. In November this year, Universities Scotland will publish a set of 15 actions to

widen access that we believe will remove as many obstacles to access and create as many opportunities as are in our power. Our work focuses in three broad areas of contextualised admissions, increasing articulation into university and increasing where full-credit can be given for existing qualifications and in bridging programmes from school. We believe this set of actions will go further than the 10 recommendations that the Commission on Widening Access intended for universities to deliver. We would be happy to share this work with the Committee when it is published.

22. It is important that the issues of widening access and retention are linked. The

Scottish Funding Council’s triennial report on widening access notes that the retention rate of students from the most deprived communities is lower but also states: “but overall they are improving and the gap with other students is narrowing.”12 The retention rate of SIMD20 students has been a particular focus. This has been steadily increasing from 84.6 per cent in 2010/11 to 86.4 per cent in 2015/16 thus closing the gap to the average retention rate which was 90.5 per cent.13

Representation of other groups of students

23. Black and Minority Ethnic students in Scotland (BME) were 8 per cent of full-time, first-degree Scottish-domiciled undergraduate students in 2015/16. As context, 4% of Scotland’s population was BME in the 2011 Census.14 This figure has risen steadily from 4.7 per cent in 2002/03.

                                                            10 SFC (2017) for AY 2015/16. This measure is full-time, first degree entrants of all age groups. It is the measure supported by the Commissioner for Fair Access.  11 Scottish Government (2017) School-leaver Attainment by SIMD 12 SFC (2017) Triennial Review on Widening Access 13 SFC (2017) Report on Widening Access 2015-16 This retention data from SFC are not comparable to the HESA non-continuation data for the UK. 14 SFC (2017) Report on Widening Access 2015-16 

VAL0043

  

24. Students declaring a disability were 11.5 per cent of full-time, first-degree

Scottish-domiciled undergraduate students in 2015/16. This data has been consistently moving in a positive direction, with this group of students increasing steadily since 2002/03.

Senior management pay in universities 25. Principals fully accept that the process for determining the pay of Vice-

Chancellors and other senior staff needs to have the confidence of all staff, students, Government and the wider public. New measures relating to remuneration committees in the 2017 edition of the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance (published October 2017) will further increase transparency and accountability in the decision making process for senior pay in Scotland.

26. The 2017 edition of the Scottish Code makes new requirements of the membership of remuneration committees, including:

that no category of governing body member should be excluded from

membership (which in Scotland includes staff, trade union representatives and students as well as lay members).

a new requirement to seek views from representatives of staff and students and recognised trades unions in relation to the remuneration package of the Principal and the senior executive team.

guidance that public sector on the kinds of evidence that remuneration committees should consider in its decision-making including appropriate comparative information on salaries and other benefits and conditions of service in equivalent positions in other organisations that also receive public funding.

28. It is worth stating, unequivocally, that Principals have no role in the discussion or decision-making process for their own pay. Good governance in higher education is the responsibility of the Chairs of Court. The Committee of Scottish Chairs meets as a network. It commissioned the development of the 2017 Code which was led by a steering group that included members from the STUC and NUS Scotland.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 29. Scotland is very proud of its enhancement-led approach to quality in teaching

and learning. Students have been a key partner in this system for over ten years. Student satisfaction is high in Scotland with 86% of respondents saying the course is stimulating, 90% saying staff are good at explaining things and 87% saying they have been able to contact staff when they’ve needed to.15 Recent enhancement themes delivered in Scottish higher education include

                                                            15 National Student Satisfaction 2017 for Scottish HEIs.

VAL0043

  

employability, linkages between teaching and research and student transitions into, through and out of university.

30. Scottish higher education recognises the role that global citizenship contributes to our graduates’ success. There has been a huge focus on outward mobility to encourage an historically reluctant Scottish-domiciled student population to study abroad. We’re delighted to see a 33% increase in the number of students in Scottish universities taking-up Erasmus+ opportunities for outward mobility between the 2015 & 2016 calls alone. Nearly one in ten Scots now take up the chance of study abroad.

TEF

31. The introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has not had the same impact in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. This is to be expected given Scotland already has a well-established and respected model for high quality teaching.

32. Five universities in Scotland chose to enter the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) in 2017. They were awarded three gold ratings and two silver.

33. We have been pleased to have had close engagement with both the Department for Education and the Scottish Government throughout 2016/17 to explore how TEF can be sensitive to differences between the Scottish and English higher education contexts. We look forward to continuing that engagement as TEF continues to develop. We support Universities UK’s view that it will be important that the independent review of the TEF, as required by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, represents a genuine point of reflection for the development of the TEF. This is crucial given that only 2% of the UK higher education sector responding to Universities UK’s survey believe that the TEF actually measures ‘teaching excellence’ for students.16

UK Quality Code

34. The Committee will be aware of the QAA consultation on the new UK Quality Code. Universities Scotland will make a full and considered response to the consultation. We value the distinctive approach to quality taken in Scotland but also value that this sits within a UK-wide structure. Our initial impressions are that the Code is England-centric with less focus on enhancement and on student engagement than we would like to see. Both are key elements of the Scottish approach.

The role of the Office for Students

                                                            16 Universities UK, 2017 Review of the Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2

VAL0043

  

35. The Office for Students does not have a remit for Scottish higher education. However, decisions taken in the English sector do often have a direct or indirect effect on Scottish higher education. Nicola Dandridge’s appointment as Chief Executive, and her former experience as Chief Executive of Universities UK, gives us every confidence that the OfS will be alert to cross-border implications of OfS policy and practice and look to engage Scottish HE.

October 2017

VAL0063

 

Written Evidence submitted by Universities UK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1st. Our universities are a British success story: world-renowned, internationally

competitive and a major economic asset. Universities are committed to driving social mobility through the transformational experience that higher education provides, and supportive of social justice, believing that an individual’s success should reflect innate talent, ability and hard work, not their background or birth.

2nd. There are many ways to assess value for money: value for the taxpayer,

value for students, value for graduates, and value for employers, for communities and for regions. It is right to expect universities to demonstrate value for money in each of these ways. Universities UK (UUK) believes the sector can demonstrate clear benefits across all of these areas. This submission sets out evidence and a commentary to show how universities are delivering value for money.

3rd. In 2014-15 universities generated over £95bn of gross output, supported more than 940,000 jobs across the UK, and contributed £21.5bn to GDP, representing 1.2% of the UK's GDP.1

4th. Universities play a significant role in training the nation’s future doctors, nurses, teachers and world-leading academics. They are places where ground-breaking research making a huge economic, social and cultural contribution to society takes place.

5th. The UK needs to be prepared for the emerging challenges from increased global competition and technological change, particularly in the context of the UK leaving the European Union. Increased productivity of the economy, together with high employment, are the key determinants of the UK’s economic prosperity and ability to compete globally – our higher education system is crucial to this.

6th. Currently there is a shortage of higher-level skills, and up to an 8% shortage

in graduates is projected to continue to 2020-22.2 61% of employers are not confident about accessing high skilled employees in the future.3 Universities have a key role to play in increasing skills of the UK workforce – both in terms of creating graduates and expanding opportunities for flexible, lifelong

                                                            1 Oxford Economics (2017), The Economic Impact of Universities 2014-15 (commissioned by Universities UK) 2 Universities UK (2015), Supply and demand for higher-level skills 3 Confederation of British Industry/Pearson (2017), Helping the UK thrive, Education and skills survey

VAL0063

 

learning.

7th. How students assess whether their time in higher education provides value for money depends on a number of key factors:

Their reasons for entering higher education, expected experience and outcomes

Their actual experiences in obtaining their qualification and outcomes following their qualification

Whether their expectations match their actual experiences4 Their understanding of the costs of their higher education experience

and how they are met 8th. The 2017 National Student Survey (NSS) survey, based upon responses from

over 300,000 final year students across the UK, found that:5

Overall student satisfaction with their course was 84% 85% were satisfied with the teaching on their course 80% were satisfied with the level of academic support 84% were satisfied with the learning opportunities at their institution

9th. We know that current students are more worried about the level of their

maintenance costs than about long-term debt arising from student loans, as demonstrated by evidence gathered by the independent Student Funding Panel.6

10th. Universities UK welcomes the government’s recent changes to the repayment

threshold. Not only does it put extra cash in the pockets of many graduates starting their careers, it means that interest rates are reduced for those earning under £45,000.

11th. The current student funding system in England is not readily understandable or transparent. Income-contingent loans do not share the same characteristics as conventional debt but are widely considered to be the same by students, graduates and their families.

12th. There are now over 80 universities – from every region – registered to

provide degree apprenticeships. From initially small numbers we expect to see growth in areas such as engineering, digital skills and leadership and management, all areas of identified skill shortages.

                                                            4 The 2017 HEPI-HEA Student Experience Survey found the strongest correlations between student’s perception of value for money and the following measures: “Experience has matched expectations” (positive correlation), “If you knew what you do now, would you have chosen a different course?” (negative correlation). 5 Higher Education Funding Council for England (2017), 2017 National Student Survey 6 Student Funding Panel (2015), An analysis of the design, impact and options for reform of the student fees and loan system in England; also see Welsh Government (2017), Review of higher education funding and student finance arrangements in Wales

VAL0063

 

13th. There is scope to further enhance the supply of higher level skills through

allowing for a greater number of individuals, across a wide range of ages, to retrain and upskill. The continuing fall in part-time and mature students is problematic and needs addressing. It is now time to seek a policy solution to this decline.

14th. The remuneration packages of vice-chancellors and senior leaders of public

universities are determined by independent remuneration committees and are publicly available in universities’ annual reports and accounts. It is understandable that high pay is questioned and it is right to expect that the process for determining pay for senior staff is rigorous and the decision-making process is transparent. It is also reasonable to expect that decisions are explained and justified. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC), which provides guidance for institutions on governance, is currently in the process of developing a new Fair Pay Code to be shared with governing councils to support them in meeting these important expectations.”

15th. This submission covers all the areas outlined in the Education Committee’s terms of reference for the inquiry:

1. Value for money for taxpayers

Value for money for students Evidence on employment outcomes Evidence of quality in the student experience Costs of the higher education experience

2. Senior management pay in universities 3. Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

Access to higher education Student success and financial support

4. Value for money and the role of the Office for Students

Summary of recommendations and actions

1. To further maximize the value for money for taxpayers, students and

graduate outcomes Universities UK recommends:

I. The government should work with the sector to explore the option of providing targeted maintenance grants to those in most need of this support.

II. In addition to the government’s recent changes to the repayment threshold, Universities UK encourages the government to look again at the interest rate students pay while studying.

III. Universities to work with other key stakeholders to ensure transparency so that all students can assess the benefits of higher education (both economic

VAL0063

 

and wider benefits) relative to other options, understand the obligations of the student loan system, and can make an informed choice between different providers, subjects and ways of studying. This would involve working alongside relevant stakeholders including government, the National Union of Students (NUS) and other key influencers to examine how improvements can be made to the current information made available.

IV. Enhanced support for flexible and lifelong learning: this could be through

greater government support for adults to retrain, upskill and to adopt more flexible ways of learning. It could also involve better career advice for mature learners and those considering retraining.

V. A better matching of graduate skills with employer demand at the local/regional level: this could involve government supporting networks of local universities, employers and stakeholders to encourage employer demand for graduate employment and work experience. These networks could match the best possible candidates to the opportunities, while ensuring these opportunities are more widely available than currently.

VI. Create stronger pathways through technical education from greater local

collaboration: this could involve systematically reviewing the barriers to increased local collaboration and creation of collaborative models between universities, further education colleges and schools, and addressing these barriers.

VII. Better match companies and investors to the relevant university expertise:

targeted support should be given to developing networks of universities (which could have a broad local or regional focus) with a particular focus on signposting, supporting and incubating businesses, and providing training (for example university-run workshops to support SMEs with business proposal writing).

VIII. On degree apprenticeships, Universities UK recommends that all employers

involved in trailblazers should be surveyed on their experience and how the process could be improved and made more transparent. Universities UK would also recommend a more impartial approach from the Institute for Apprenticeships by ensuring it engages effectively with all providers, in particular, by having a university leader on the board alongside further education and private providers.

Social mobility and widening access

2. Universities will continue to address social mobility and widening participation in the following ways:

I. Work with schools to raise pupil attainment, including via: universities sponsoring schools; establishing new schools; providing initial teacher

VAL0063

 

training and CPD opportunities for the teacher workforce; A-Level STEM subject teaching; curriculum design and development; conducting educational research; offering a range of support to groups of local schools via a membership model or more bespoke partnerships; mentoring to help improve students’ GCSE or A-Level grades

II. Organise summer schools and other initiatives that offer insights into the opportunities universities can provide to children who may not have a family background in higher education

III. Work with employers, schools and colleges through the National Collaborative Outreach Programme aimed at increasing the number of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education by 2020

IV. Address social mobility ‘coldspots’ through engagement with, and representation on the Boards of, the Secretary of State’s Opportunity Areas

V. Further, we will offer evidence of what works: Universities UK has put

forward a proposal for an independent ‘Evidence and Impact Exchange’ to systematically evaluate and promote the evidence on the best ways to support social mobility.

VI. A greater focus on ensuring those that go to university are able to succeed

and reap the benefits in terms of student success and employment opportunities. With the merger of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) into the Office for Students (OfS), we see an opportunity to further encourage investment and support across the student life cycle. Universities UK is also currently working with the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) on a proposal for a pilot to implement the Gatsby Benchmarks of good career guidance across four universities in the region.

Teaching quality and student experience

3. Universities UK believes that in order for the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to make a sustainable and useful contribution to teaching and learning. The independent review of the TEF should consider the following:

o That the principles of the TEF are based on shared definitions of excellence o An assessment of how the TEF is used by students and its impact on teaching

practice and enhancement o The governance and phasing of future changes to avoid further piecemeal

amendments that undermine the TEF’s coherence for students and institutions using it

I. Further, the TEF and related regulation policy should not restrict innovation and

diversity in provision that students ultimately benefit from. We must avoid the

VAL0063

 

TEF driving institutions closer towards a one-size-fits all model of teaching and learning.

Value for money for taxpayers 1. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has

described the English system as ‘one of the few countries to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance’.7

2. Universities across the UK have responded to a more competitive environment

with the needs of a diverse student community paramount. In a more restrained public funding environment, universities are investing in infrastructure and in staff to ensure a world-class workforce and world-class facilities are available to serve the needs of learners and to deliver excellent research.

3. In 2015 the Universities UK (UUK) Efficiency Task Group reported that

universities consistently met efficiency targets set in successive Comprehensive Spending Reviews (£1.38 billion of efficiencies were reported against a cumulative target of £1.23 billion).8 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) reported in March 2015 that efficiencies totalling more than £1 billion were delivered in the previous three years.9 Institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also had to manage challenging efficiency targets and funding settlements in recent years.

4. Universities continue to be serious about increasing efficiency, effectiveness and

demonstrating value for money in a number of ways, including: o Efficiency gains from better use of space o Control over pay costs o Cooperation and collaboration through strategic asset sharing arrangements o Shared infrastructure that ensures that universities have access to the very

best technology while helping reduce costs o Positive developments in procurement, with the Efficiency Measurement

Model survey (reinstated by HEFCE) showing that procurement efficiencies totalled £153 million in 2013-14, up from £132 million in 2011–12

5. The UK needs to be prepared for the emerging challenges from increased global competition and technological change, particularly in the context of the UK leaving the EU. Increased productivity of the economy, together with high employment, are the key determinants of the UK’s economic prosperity and ability to compete globally: our world-class higher education system is crucial to

                                                            7 OECD (2014), Comments by Andreas Schleicher at launch of Education at a Glance 8 Universities UK (2015), Efficiency, effectiveness and value for money 9 HEFCE (2015), Future financial challenges for higher education

VAL0063

 

this.

6. Higher education will have a particularly significant role to play in the development of the government’s industrial strategy. Graduates, and the higher-level skills they possess, are in high and increasing demand by employers.10 There is a current shortage of higher-level skills, and up to an 8% shortage in graduates is projected to continue to 2020-22.11 61% of employers are not confident about accessing high skilled employees in the future.12 This evidence strongly refutes the perception that there are too many graduates or large numbers of graduates in non-graduate jobs. Six months after graduation, 77% are in professional level jobs, rising to 84% after three-and-a-half years.13

7. The UK has been very successful at growing its supply of higher level skills – between 2006-07 and 2015-16, the number of higher education qualifications awarded each year increased by 91,665 or 14%.14 Sustained funding of higher education, with no cap on student numbers in England, is key to this continued success. Around 35% of the long-term cost of educating students is funded by government and 65% by graduates.15

8. While most graduates fare very well, some employers struggle to find the skills

they require. Some employers, in specific industries and sectors, cite persistent shortages of subject-specific skills.

9. Such skills gaps could benefit from being better communicated to prospective

students, so they make the best possible decision around choice of subject of study and future career paths.

10. The needs of business and learners in relation to skills and sourcing of

university expertise could be addressed by:

a) A better matching of graduate skills with employer demand at the local level: this could involve government supporting networks of local universities, employers and stakeholders to encourage employer demand for graduate employment and work experience, match the best possible candidates to the opportunities, while ensuring these opportunities are more widely available than currently. These networks could also monitor skills gaps at the local level, encourage collaborative development of courses and programmes to

                                                            10 Institute for Student Employers (2017), Annual Survey 2017 11 Universities UK (2015), Supply and demand for higher-level skills 12 CBI/Pearson (2017), Helping the UK thrive, Education and skills survey 13 Higher Education Statistics Agency (2017), Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey 15-16 and the Longitudinal Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education 12-13 14 See Table 5 in Universities UK (2017), Patterns and Trends in UK higher education 15 Institute for Fiscal Studies (2017), Higher education funding in England: past, present and options for the future, The proportion funded by government will rise to 47% when the recent proposed change to the repayment threshold is implemented. See Institute for Fiscal Studies (2017), Higher education finance reform: raising the repayment threshold to £25,000 and freezing the fee cap at £9,250.

VAL0063

 

address local needs, and help address disparities in high level skills between local areas. These local networks could build on the experience of the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP).

b) Creating stronger pathways through technical education from greater local collaboration: this could involve systematically reviewing the barriers to increased local collaboration and creation of collaborative models between universities, further education colleges and schools, and addressing these barriers. Universities are well placed to engage with and lead the development of Institutes of Technology (IoTs), building on the many strategic partnerships within their localities to drive higher level technical education. These initiatives will help overcome the artificial divides between education providers, and working with business deliver pathways and opportunities for good jobs. Many universities are preparing to partner with further education colleges, other education providers and business in response to the government’s current call for interest in the new fund to support IoTs.

c) IoTs are only one part of the picture and there are many and varied relationships between universities, further education and business that can support the broad objective of increasing technical education provision and pathways. Universities UK will shortly commission new work to examine the nature and benefits of different sorts of partnerships and what more can be done to catalyse these.

d) Better matching of companies and investors to the relevant university expertise: targeted support should be given to developing networks of universities (which could have a broad local or regional focus) with a particular focus on signposting, supporting and incubating businesses, and training (for example university-run workshops to support SMEs with business proposal writing). A networked approach would improve the interface and matching between universities and businesses. This support could be through rolling out University Enterprise Zones, through additional funding for the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), the forthcoming UK Shared Prosperity Fund, through business rate relief or VAT exemptions, or innovation vouchers.

11. In a very short space of time universities across England have invested resources and energy into developing degree apprenticeship provision with employers. There are now over 80 universities registered to provide degree apprenticeships with universities of every type and from every region seeking to work with employers to recruit apprentices. The key benefits that universities have identified are enhancing partnerships with employers, meeting regional skills needs and increasing social mobility thus contributing to increasing productivity and widening participation. From initially small numbers we expect to see healthy growth in areas such as engineering, digitals skills and leadership and management, all areas of identified skill shortages. We also expect to see growth in the provision of public sector degree apprenticeships in healthcare,

VAL0063

 

education and policing, helping to improve and enhance public services. Universities are also partnering with further education colleges to ensure apprenticeships meet local skills needs and help drive economic growth and improve opportunities for young people. Further, the sector is looking at how universities, in partnership with others, can take advantage of the option to transfer 10% of their levy to partner with employers to drive the opportunities for social mobility afforded by apprenticeships.

12. Universities UK welcomes the funding commitment from the government’s

Degree Apprenticeships Development Fund, the first phase of which delivered £4.5 million to 18 projects, which included 25 higher education institutions and 20 further education colleges. This funding has contributed to the development of new provision to support up to 5,200 new degree apprenticeships from September 2017. The second phase of funding is delivering £4.9 million to 27 projects involving 63 universities and colleges. These will seek to develop new provision for 4,500 apprentices from September 2018.

13. There have, however, been some barriers to the development of degree

apprenticeships and Universities UK recommends improvements to the trailblazer process. The sector has found, on occasions, that the apprenticeship systems and requirements have been focused on certain providers and certain levels of provision. There have been some barriers to the development of degree apprenticeships and there remains considerable lack of understanding about both degree apprenticeships and universities. The trailblazer process, in the sector’s experience, has been convoluted, confusing and contradictory.

14. Universities UK recommends that all employers involved in trailblazers should

be surveyed on their experience and how the process could be improved and made more transparent. Further, a more impartial approach from the Institute for Apprenticeships is recommended to ensure it effectively engages with all providers. This could be achieved by having a university leader on the board alongside further education and private providers.

15. There is scope to further enhance the supply of higher level skills through

allowing for a greater number of individuals, across a wide range of ages, to retrain and upskill. The fall in part-time students is widely acknowledged.16 This could be addressed through greater government support for adults to adopt more flexible ways of learning, better career advice to older learners and stronger support into, and through, technical education into developing higher level technical skills.

16. Higher education, and the student experience it provides, confers benefits to

society beyond the economic impacts on skills and productivity, through its

                                                            16 Universities UK (2013), The power of part-time: review of part-time and mature higher education

VAL0063

 

wider impacts on social mobility and society.17 Research by the OECD shows that graduates in the UK are more likely to report better health and wellbeing, less likely to commit crime, more likely to volunteer and more likely to be politically engaged.18

17. As well as the benefits, an important part of assessing value for money to the

taxpayer is the accountability of universities. Almost all universities that receive public funding are charities, and any income over expenditure (or surplus) is reinvested back into providing high-quality services in the future – including investment in new teaching spaces and research facilities, and major refurbishment of existing buildings. Universities have also led the way on regeneration of their city centres through targeted investment, for example:

o Newcastle University has invested £350 million alongside the local council and Legal & General in an urban innovation hub set to create over 4000 new jobs and 450 new homes.

o The University of Hull has invested £200 million including a 400-seater concert hall, sports facilities and a library open to the community.

o The University of Southampton has invested £140 million including a new building to be shared with global engineering firm Lloyd's Register.

18. Further examples of how universities invest in and work with their local

communities are can be found in Universities UK’s regional briefings linked to our industrial strategy green paper response.19

                                                            17 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013), Things we know and don’t know about the Wider Benefits of Higher Education: A review of the recent literature 18 OECD (2017), Education at a glance 19 Universities UK (2017), The industrial strategy and universities: regional briefings

VAL0063

 

Value for money for students

19. How students assess whether their time in higher education provides value for money depends on a number of key factors including:

o Their reasons for entering higher education, expected experience and outcomes

o Their actual experiences in obtaining their qualification and outcomes following their qualification

o Whether their expectations match their actual experiences20 o Their understanding of the costs of their higher education experience and

how they are met

20. A survey of over 3,000 students by the Student Funding Panel in 2015 found that the most popular reasons given to enter higher education were:21

o To make me more employable/improve my career prospects o A university degree is a requirement within my chosen field of work o To continue with my education/because of my interest in the subject o For the student experience o To better myself

21. Recent research by NEON,22 which surveys students in their final year of

Level 3 courses (similar in level to A levels), shows 80% want to go to university because they believe they will get a better job afterwards. This indicates that individual employment outcomes and student experiences are absolutely key to an assessment of value for money for students.

22. There has been some suggestion of the sector operating a cartel in relation

to the fee regime. The Office for Fair Trading (OFT) report (now the Competition and Market Authority) from March 2014 says on this matter: 23 o It has been widely reported that, since the 2011 reforms, a large number of

higher education institutions have set fees at, or around, the £9,000 cap, raising concerns as to whether this is the result of collusive behaviour.

o If such collusive behaviour were taking place it would be to the detriment of students, as it would result in higher fees and/or lower levels of quality than under more competitive conditions.

                                                            20 The 2017 HEPI-HEA Student Experience Survey found the strongest correlations between student’s perception of value for money and the following measures: “Experience has matched expectations” (positive correlation), “If you knew what you do now, would you have chosen a different course?” (negative correlation). 21 Student Funding Panel (2015), An analysis of the design, impact and options for reform of the student fees and loan system in England 22 National Education Opportunities Network (2017), Does cost matter? How the HE finance system affects student decision making 23 Office for Fair Trading (2014), Higher education in England: an OFT call for information

VAL0063

 

o To date, the OFT has received no complaints or evidence of either explicit or tacit collusion between higher education institutions with respect to fee setting.

23. The sector itself has been extremely sensitive about ensuring compliance with competition law, and its obligations under consumer law. We at Universities UK have provided the sector with legal advice and supported them to ensure they are compliant, and encourage anyone that has evidence of a cartel or anti-competitive practices taking place to let the Competitions and Market Authority (CMA) know.

Evidence on employment outcomes 24. In terms of employment outcomes, university graduates are better off than

non-graduates. In 2016: o 87% of graduates were employed compared to only 70% of non-graduates,

whilst the rate of graduate unemployment was 3% compared to 6%.24 o Working age graduates (aged 16-64) were earning, on average, £9,500 more

than non-graduates and the graduate premium. The net financial benefit of attending university over a lifetime is estimated to be an average of £167,000 for men and £252,000 for women.25

o Graduates display high career satisfaction, 88% being very or fairly satisfied with their career to date.

25. Students’ expectations of their employment outcomes tend to match their

actual experiences, with 85% of 2012-13 graduates believing their degree was required, important or helped them obtain their current job and 76% believing that their higher education experience prepared them for or progressed their career.26

26. Progress is being made in addressing underrepresentation, for example in

2015, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds were 65% more likely to enter higher education than in 2006.27

27. It is crucial that prospective students have access to detailed data to enable

them to make a well-informed choice on entering higher education, compared to the alternatives. Datasets such as the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) and Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) are important sources. This data must be readily accessible to ensure no student enters the higher education system without understanding the implications of their choice.

                                                            24 Department for Education (2017), Graduate Labour Market Statistics 2016 25 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013), The impact of university degrees on the lifecycle of earnings: some further analysis 26 HESA (2017), Longitudinal Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey 2012-13 27 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (2015), 2015 cycle applicant figures

VAL0063

 

Evidence on quality of the student experience 28. Research conducted by ComRes on behalf of Universities UK found that

student perceptions of value for money were based on key aspects of the student experience, including good study facilities, high-quality academic staff and personalised feedback, and achieving a degree and employment.28

29. The terms of reference of this inquiry refer to a recent figure which found

that only 35% of respondents rated their higher education experience as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ value for money. While universities are not complacent about improving their offers to students, particularly as rising fees are accompanied by increased student expectations, other data shows that overall students value their courses and believe them to be of a high quality. The National Student Survey (NSS) has demonstrated consistently high levels of student satisfaction over the last decade. The 2017 survey, which drew upon responses from over 300,000 final year students across the UK, found that:29

o Overall student satisfaction with their course was 84% o 85% were satisfied with the teaching on their course o 80% were satisfied with the level of academic support o 84% were satisfied with the learning opportunities at their institution

30. Other data sources also corroborate levels of high satisfaction among

students:

o The highest international student satisfaction rates across all areas when compared to global competitors30

o The national dropout rate for 2014/15 is 6.2%, near record lows, despite the increase in the total and proportion of students going to university31

o The aforementioned figure which found that 85% of 2012-13 graduates believe their degree was important in obtaining their job32

31. The debate about value for money often focuses on contact hours as a proxy

for the debate about student fees. Students tend to expect about 12 hours a week of contact on average, however actual contact time depends on the type and structure of the course and the volume of independent study expected of

                                                            28 Universities UK (2017), Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university 29 HEFCE (2017), 2017 National Student Survey 30 UUK International (2017), International Facts and Figures 2017 31 HESA (2017), Non-continuation rates summary: UK Performance Indicators 2015/16 32 HESA (2017), Longitudinal Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey 2012-13

VAL0063

 

students.33 Some subjects such as Arts and Design or English Literature may place a greater emphasis on independent study. Student outcomes are supported by good quality teaching, and are assessed against criteria of a course, not the volume of contact hours.34

32. It is essential that students are properly supported to achieve their learning

goals. All universities have internal quality processes that are intended to assure the quality of the education that they offer. This includes programme approval processes, ongoing review of modules and teaching, and development of staff through initiatives such as the UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Learning. Universities also use sector-wide measures, such as the National Student Survey and other initiatives such as the HEA UK Engagement Survey, to evaluate the satisfaction and engagement of their students.

33. Universities are also accountable for the quality of their teaching. Data on

areas such as retention and student satisfaction are collected and reported to national funders and regulators who can then demand remedial action. All universities are required to meet the requirements of the UK Quality Code. This is a tool that gives universities, students, employers, funders and regulators – across the UK and internationally – confidence in the high quality of UK higher education. The Quality Code is currently being reviewed as part of the transition to the Office for Students (OfS) to clarify its focus on academic standards and student outcomes.

34. Since the removal of student number controls in England in 2015/16,

students are in an increasingly powerful position when making their study choices. This has increased the pressure on universities to offer courses attractive to students in an increasingly competitive market. There has also been a series of initiatives intended to help inform students about the teaching and learning on offer at universities. Students are able review to key data and information such as the structure of courses, types of assessment and opportunities for placements. Students are also able to review data about prospective courses, including student satisfaction, the number of ‘good degrees’ achieved and the employment destinations of graduates.

35. More recently the Teaching Excellent Framework (TEF) has been introduced

to give students further information about the learning experience offered by universities and to support the ongoing enhancement of teaching. Universities UK has supported the development of the TEF and has worked with government to ensure that it makes a positive contribution to the sector. The TEF has a welcome focus on the outcomes of students, including core metrics on student satisfaction and outcomes, whilst also combining this with evidence provided by universities submissions. Early evidence shows that the TEF has already shaped

                                                            33 HEPI/HEA (2017), 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey; Department for Education (2017), Teaching Excellence Framework: Subject level pilot specification 34 HEA (2010), Dimensions of quality

VAL0063

 

institutional teaching and learning strategies in approximately 50% of the sector.35

36. For the TEF to make a sustainable contribution to teaching and learning

several issues should be considered. While 73% of the sector believe that the TEF will enhance the profile of teaching and learning, only 2% believe that the TEF measures ‘teaching excellence’ for students. It is essential that the independent review required by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 represents a genuine point of reflection for the development of the TEF.

37. Universities recommend that the review should consider the following for the TEF to move towards fully reflect teaching quality for students: o That the principles of the TEF are based shared definitions of excellence o An assessment of how the TEF is used by students and its impact on teaching

practice and enhancement o The governance and phasing of future changes to avoid further piecemeal

amendments that undermine the TEF’s coherence for students and institutions using it

38. Teaching practice is not static and it is essential that the TEF does not restrict

innovation and diversity in provision that students ultimately benefit from. For example, financial support for accelerated two-year degrees may make these types of courses attractive to some students. Equally four-year degrees, particularly with time in industry or overseas study, also have benefits both for students and employers.

Costs of the higher education experience 39. A student's understanding of, and ability to meet, the costs of their higher

education is a crucial factor in their assessment of value for money. 78% of students in England believe they should be expected to contribute to the cost of their higher education.36

40. The current income-contingent loan system has significant strengths –

graduates do not begin repaying until they earn over £21,000 (£25,000 in 2018), and after 30 years any remaining loan is forgiven. This effectively protects graduates who earn relatively less. Universities UK welcomes the government’s recent changes to the repayment threshold. Not only does it put extra cash in the pockets of many graduates starting their careers, it means that interest rates are reduced for those earning under £45,000. We would also encourage government to look again at the interest rate students pay while studying.

                                                            35 Universities UK (2017), Review of the Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2 36 HEPI/HEA (2017), 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey

VAL0063

 

41. However, two key issues are potentially impacting on students’ views of value for money: o The significant financial challenges in meeting the costs of living while

studying. Current students are more worried about the level of their maintenance costs than about long-term debt arising from student loans, as demonstrated by evidence gathered by the independent Student Funding Panel.37

o The current student funding system in England is not readily understandable or transparent. Income-contingent loans do not share the same characteristics as conventional debt but are widely considered to be the same by students, graduates and their families.

42. To address the first issue, Universities UK recommends the government work

with the sector to explore the option of providing targeted maintenance grants to those in most need of this support.

43. To address the second issue, we believe that the costs and benefits of higher

education should be made much more transparent to prospective students, particularly in how the student loan system acts effectively as a safety net with the forgiveness of debt. Universities wish to work alongside the relevant stakeholders to ensure all students can transparently weigh the benefits of higher education (both economic and wider benefits) relative to other options, understand the obligations of the student loan system, and can make an informed choice between different providers, subjects and ways of studying.

                                                            37 Student Funding Panel (2015), An analysis of the design, impact and options for reform of the student fees and loan system in England; also see Welsh Government (2017), Review of higher education funding and student finance arrangements in Wales

VAL0063

 

Senior management pay in universities

44. The remuneration packages of vice-chancellors and senior leaders of public universities are determined by independent remuneration committees and are publicly available in universities’ annual reports and accounts. Transparency of senior remuneration is also a requirement of the higher education publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.38 It is worth being totally clear that vice-chancellors do not set their own pay.

45. It is understandable that high pay is questioned and it is right to expect that

the process for determining pay for senior staff is rigorous and the decision-making process is transparent. Notwithstanding the transparency already seen, Universities UK believes that there is more that can and should be done given the strong public and student interest and the importance of universities demonstrating value for money. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC), which provides guidance for institutions on senior remuneration, is currently in the process of developing a new Fair Pay Code that will set out strengthened and more explicit expectations around the membership and conduct of remuneration committees, greater transparency to objectives and performance, improving data for benchmarking and setting out the role that universities must play in explaining and justifying decision making. We are pleased that the CBI has offered support for the development of the new Code, to ensure the sector can draw from experiences and best practice in the private sector.

46. We have an extremely successful higher education sector in the UK.

Universities teach millions of students a year and are diverse and complex global organisations. They are international and drive exports through attracting international students, as well as running overseas campuses. They are at the cutting edge of global knowledge creation whilst working with their regions to drive innovation and public services, be it through spinning out new companies, upskilling the workforce, working with the health sector or running schools. Increasingly universities are also being looked at to do more and are seen as central to the country’s objectives for growth and productivity.

47. If universities are to succeed and play this central role effectively we need

strong leadership and competitive remuneration. However, it is also reasonable to expect that decisions about the pay of leaders are explained and justified. Institutional leaders are increasingly drawn from a diverse range of careers including business, senior civil service, industry as well as academia. Many are individuals who are sought after not just in the UK, but internationally, for the skills they can bring to lead these complex organisations. The growth of higher education sectors across the globe means that recruitment for the best leaders is increasingly competitive.

                                                            38 Information Commissioner’s Office, Definition document for universities and higher education institutions

VAL0063

 

48. The average salaries of university leaders in the UK are comparable to similarly-sized public and private organisations, and in many cases UK pay is below that of university leaders in competitor countries. We would refer the committee to the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and Committee of University Chairs (CUC) submissions, which provide further detailed data on senior remuneration in institutions.

49. The highly-competitive international environment in which the UK’s

universities operate impacts on our ability to attract and retain global academic talent. Top research talent, particularly in areas such as medical research, are in demand not only by universities in the USA and elsewhere but also by the private sector. To attract – and keep – the best talent from around the world, remuneration needs to keep pace with the market. The UK is an attractive place, given our highly autonomous system and world-class facilities, but the investment being made in other systems, such as China, means we cannot be complacent.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 50. Universities are committed both to driving social mobility through the

transformational experience that higher education provides, and supportive of social justice, believing that success should reflect innate talent and ability, not background or birth.

51. Throughout 2016 Universities UK convened a Social Mobility Advisory Group

made up of vice-chancellors, representatives from schools, colleges, students, employers and third sector organisations, and academics and practitioners working on widening participation.39 The group was convened to focus efforts on how universities can contribute to reducing inequalities and promoting opportunities for all. As part of a ‘state of the nation’ report examining how universities contribute to social mobility, the group made practical recommendations to address inequalities in higher education. This work is now being taken forward as a separate programme of work at Universities UK outlined in more detail below.

52. The latest data from the OECD shows that, in England, the percentage of

young adults who have gained a degree but whose parents did not go to university (one measure of social mobility) is 25%, above the OECD average of 19.9%, and higher than in the USA, France, Germany and Italy.40 However, although universities in England have made substantial progress in recent years in improving access to, and outcomes from, higher education among

                                                            39 Universities UK (2016), Working in partnership: enabling social mobility in higher education – the final report of the Social Mobility Advisory Group 40 Times Higher Education (2017), ‘Huge variation in HE access performance across world, data reveal’

VAL0063

 

disadvantaged and underrepresented groups of students, the sector recognises that disparities remain and is committed to addressing these.

53. For the current academic year (2017/18), 123 higher education institutions

have signed access agreements with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). These agreements set out a university’s fee limits and the measures the institution intends to put in place to widen participation and ensure students succeed throughout the student lifecycle. In 2015/16, universities and colleges invested £725.2 million as part of their access agreements. This represents 27.4% of their income from fees above the basic level.41

54. These agreements have helped facilitate and focus universities’ activities to

both widen access and support student success where it is needed the most, and with considerable results. However, universities are not complacent about the huge amount of work still required, particularly to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to achieve the same outcomes from university. The merger of OFFA into the OfS creates an opportunity to look at these requirements afresh and ensure investment can be focused where it is most needed across the student lifecycle.

55. There is also a question about how we get the best use from this investment.

Whilst initiatives are more often than not evaluated, there has to date been no systematic approach to promoting and learning from these. To support the effective use of this investment, Universities UK has therefore put forward a proposal for an independent ‘Evidence and Impact Exchange’ to systematically evaluate and promote the evidence relating to the role of higher education in social mobility. This is modelled on the ‘what works centres’ in other sectors with the aim of getting best value and outcomes from the investment being made. If we are to make real progress then evidence-based interventions will be critical.

56. There could also be greater coordination of information and advice across

schools, universities and employers, particularly in terms of the impact of subject choice and the qualifications taken at school and graduate careers. Universities UK is currently working with the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) on a proposal for a pilot to implement the Gatsby Benchmarks of good career guidance across four universities in the region (Newcastle University, Northumbria University, Durham University and the University of Sunderland).

Access to higher education 57.In 2015/16, universities’ and colleges’ expenditure specifically on outreach

activities reached £119.5 million and, looking at those who started a degree the following academic year, it was the rate of participation among the most

                                                            41 Office for Fair Access (2017), Fair access to higher education in England: key facts

VAL0063

 

disadvantaged 18-year olds that grew the fastest compared to the year before.42 In fact, by 2016/17, young English students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds were 74% more likely to enter university than they were 10 years earlier. In addition, the recent growth of degree apprenticeships, which universities co-design with employers, are particularly attractive to non-traditional students, thus providing a further opportunity to support widening participation goals.43

58.However, students from disadvantaged backgrounds remain less likely than their

most advantaged peers to go to university (19.5 and 46.3% respectively)44, and the higher education sector is committed to addressing this through the following means: o Working with schools to raise pupil attainment, including via45: universities

sponsoring schools; establishing new schools; providing initial teacher training and CPD opportunities for the teacher workforce; A-Level STEM subject teaching; curriculum design and development; conducting educational research; offering a range of support to groups of local schools via a membership model46 or more bespoke partnerships; mentoring to help improve students’ GCSE or A-Level grades.

o Running summer schools offering a taste of university life to children who may not have a family background in higher education.

o Working with employers, schools and colleges through the National Collaborative Outreach Programme aimed at increasing the number of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education by 2020.47

o Addressing social mobility ‘coldspots’ through engagement with, and representation on the Boards of, the Secretary of State’s Opportunity Areas.48

                                                            42 UCAS (2017), End of Cycle Report 2016 43 Universities UK (2016), The Future Growth of Degree Apprenticeships. In addition to apprenticeship provision, see the following example of South West England’s universities collaborating at the regional level to encourage those taking vocational courses to go on to higher level study: http://careerpilot.org.uk/about 44 UCAS (2017), End of Cycle Report 2016 45 For a selection of case studies, see Universities UK (2017), Raising attainment through university-school partnerships 46 For example, the University of Essex’s VI6 partnership scheme brings together six schools in the area, offering eight A-level subjects that the schools are not able to deliver. Half of the students attending this programme are from an area with some of the lowest progression rates in the UK and at the end of the first year of the programme, 87% indicated they would apply for university. 47 HEFCE, National collaborative outreach programme 48 Department for Education (2017), Education Secretary announces 6 new opportunity areas

VAL0063

 

Student success and financial support 59.In 2015/16, universities’ expenditure on bursaries, scholarships, hardship funds

and fee waivers (discounts) for lower income students and other represented groups reached £447.5 million.49 This support is targeted at those who have a low household or family income, have spent time in care, or are from an area with a low rate of progression to university.

60.The likelihood of the most disadvantaged young students at university dropping

out of their course is 8.8%, higher than the average drop-out rate of 6.2%.50 Universities absolutely recognise the importance of addressing this disparity51, which is why resource allocated to supporting student success is forecast to increase by 75% by 2021/22, to £204.7 million, accompanied by a growing emphasis on commitment to the evaluation of interventions, such as:

o Induction programmes o Study skills support o Nurturing a culture of belonging o Mentoring

61.Investment to support the progression of disadvantaged students towards

postgraduate study and employment is also increasing, and by 2021/22 is expected to have tripled from 2013/14 levels to £75.8 million.52

62.An important component of the increased resource allocated to student success

is deployed for student mental health. Research to be published shortly by HEFCE confirms that graduates have better mental health and are more resilient than age group cohorts. However, as participation in higher education has expanded, national trends in mental ill-health among young people have materialised in student populations, with sharp increases in demand for support

                                                            49 Office for Fair Access (2017), Fair access to higher education in England: key facts 50 HESA (2017), Widening participation data 51 For example, from Professor Mary Stuart, Vice Chancellor of the University of Lincoln: http://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-golden-triangle-of-retention/. Also, see Kingston University’s commitment to address the BME degree attainment gap, which has narrowed by 40% in three years: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2016/working-in-partnership-final.pdf (p. 74) 52 Office for Fair Access (2017), Fair access to higher education in England: key facts

VAL0063

 

services.53 54 The issue of student mental health has become priority for universities: Universities UK recently launched its StepChange framework to encourage institutional leaders to adopt a whole university approach to the issue including a systematic approach to needs evaluation, investment in university services and integration with local statutory services.55 Emphasis on the mental health of whole student populations across the life cycle (access, support, retention and progression) to mitigate vulnerabilities at points of transition includes targeted interventions for groups at particular risk of mental health difficulties.

63.An area of increasing focus for universities is helping to address disparities in

graduate employment outcomes between students of different backgrounds.56 For example, for 2010/11 graduates from the most disadvantaged areas, the professional employment rate 40 months after graduation was 69.9%, compared to 80.7% of the most advantaged.57

64.Universities’ career service functions operate to ensure their services are

student-centred,58 and this includes ensuring that their services meet the needs of a diverse range of students, which is a core part of the code of practice set out by the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS), which has more than 2,800 members, and 130 Universities UK member institutions represented.59 However, the responsibility within universities for supporting employability for harder-to-reach groups of students also lies within faculties, to raise awareness of employment options, illustrate what particular jobs involve, encourage engagement in social action and volunteering (which evidence suggests can help increase wellbeing), and provide opportunities for work experience or outward mobility via study/work abroad programmes,60 where

                                                            53 HEFCE (2015), Understanding provision for students with mental health problems and intensive support needs 54 The most recent research from IPPR indicates that 94% of UK universities have seen an increase in demand for counselling services. 55 Universities UK (2017), #stepchange framework 56 For example, the University of Leicester takes an institution-wide strategic approach to supporting students from low socio-economic backgrounds. The Career Development Journey was created in recognition of the University’s belief that career education should receive the same attention as academic education and development, and due to the large proportion of widening participation students with little experience of careers advice at school. This aims to ‘level the playing field’ for students across the institution and equip them to plan and develop for their own careers. 57 Higher Education Funding Council for England (2016), Differences in employment outcomes – Comparison of 2008-09 and 2010-11 first degree graduates 58 Some institutions have careers service programmes targeted at students from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as Newcastle University’s PARTNERS programme. 59 More information is available on The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services website 60 For example, see The Cantor Global Mobility Bursary Scheme, which prioritises underrepresented groups of students.

VAL0063

 

evidence suggests employment outcomes are particularly pronounced for disadvantaged and BME students.

65.On social action, the opportunities universities provide for students, particularly

less advantaged students, can be very important in providing them with the social and cultural capital that their more advantaged counterparts have. This can play an important role in their employability and mental wellbeing. In turn, society benefits from engaged and community-focused members of society who contribute to the public good.

66.On mobility, of 2014/15 graduates, those from more disadvantaged

backgrounds who had a period abroad during their degree earned 6.1% more, and those in work were more likely to be in a graduate level job (80.2% compared to 74.7%) than their non-mobile peers. Black graduates who were mobile were 70% less likely to be unemployed (4.6% compared to 7.8%) than their non-mobile peers. Asian graduates who were mobile earned on average 8% more and were 71% less likely to be unemployed (7.7% compared to 4.5%) than their non-mobile peers.61

Value for money and the role of the Office for Students 67.The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 establishes the Office for Students

(OfS) as a market regulator focused on the interests of students. It has general remits to secure value for money and promote competition in the student interest and promote equality of opportunity.

68.Universities UK has supported the development of the OfS and proposed a

register of higher education in 2015 to update the regulatory framework following changes to the student funding system.62

69.The relationship between university and student should be at the heart of the

OfS’s approach. Students value a personalised and collaborative relationship that gives them confidence that their university cares about their educational interests. 91% of students who said that their course is good value for money also said they value their relationship with their university.63

70.The OfS will rightly place student protection and student outcomes at the heart

of its approach. The OfS should work with the sector to establish robust conditions for protecting students, and act where necessary, whilst avoiding piecemeal and intrusive measures. The OfS should also work with the sector to advance student outcomes through the quality assessment system, the student

                                                            61 Universities UK (2017): Gone International: mobility works – Report on the 2014-15 graduating cohort 62 Universities UK (2015): Quality, equity, sustainability: the future of higher education regulation 63 Universities UK (2017): Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university

VAL0063

 

information landscape and the teaching excellence framework. It is essential that the statutory requirement for an independent review of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is fully respected by government and the OfS as an opportunity to shape its long-term development.

71.The OfS should operate in the interests of students. Poor quality and transient

providers are not in the interest of students and proposed ‘student protection plans’ cannot fully mitigate student’s concerns in this area.64 Universities UK has raised ongoing concerns about proposed ‘probationary’ degree awarding powers that are granted on the basis that they can be removed if problems arise. Universities UK has also objected to the idea that it is appropriate or desirable that the OfS should validate degrees, in effect granting itself degree awarding powers. These powers should be used sparingly, if at all, and if they are should be publicly justified.

72.Conditions of registration should monitor risks to students in relation to quality

and standards, student protection and access, regardless of whether an institution receives public funds or student support. Proposed student contracts are an opportunity to improve accountability between students and institution by building on consumer rights whilst protecting a collaborative educational relationship. Universities UK welcomes the recent announcement from the OfS on the introduction of a student panel to inform the regulator's work and how to ensure that the work properly involves students. It will be important that this panel is independent of the OfS.

 

October 2017

                                                            64 Universities UK (2017): Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university; National Audit Office (2017), Follow-up on alternative higher education providers 

VAL0061

 

Written Evidence submitted by University Alliance University Alliance represents 18 higher education institutions in England and Wales educating almost a quarter of all undergraduates in the UK. Alliance universities have been proud leaders in technical and professional education since the Industrial Revolution and are still crucial to the success of cities and sectors today. This document forms our written submission to the inquiry into value for money in higher education of the Education Select Committee of the House of Commons. Executive summary

1. Alliance universities play an important role in delivering the academic, professional and technical education that ensures learners have the wide range of skills, which they need to succeed throughout their working lives. These include employment-specific knowledge and general skills such as critical thinking – Alliance universities co-design and co-deliver many courses with employers to make sure they are relevant. Around 43% of their courses provide students with a qualification from a professional body as well as a degree from the university.

2. Through their leading research and education activities in subject areas

such as allied health (including nursing), engineering and art and design, Alliance universities are making a substantial contribution to productivity and growth across national and regional economies. For example, in nursing, significant changes over time means that nurses are now engaging in far more diagnostic activity. The specialised, high quality education provided by Alliance universities equips these health care professionals with the skills they need to think critically about patient care processes and practices and research demonstrates that nurses educated to a degree level are likely to provide a higher quality of care for their patients.1

3. The student experience is at the heart of the activities conducted by

Alliance universities. As universities with a long history of supporting progression to, and success in, higher education through a wide range of activities, they offer students from all parts of society the chance to pursue life-changing opportunities. Alliance universities are also committed to providing high-quality, research-informed teaching aimed at solving real-world problems. The openness of our universities to various modes of delivery, such as Degree Apprenticeships, accelerated courses, and part-time study, allows learners to obtain a higher education qualification in ways that allow them to tailor their studies to other commitments they have in their lives.

                                                       1 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/nursing/newsevents/news/2014/degree-educated-nurses-can-reduce-hospital-deaths.aspx; https://theconversation.com/youre-more-likely-to-survive-hospital-if-your-nurse-has-a-degree-61838

VAL0061

 

4. Alliance universities are committed to demonstrating accountability to the

students and communities they serve and to being good stewards of the public and private resources that are provided to them to carry out teaching, research and knowledge exchange activities. They are also constantly evolving and are eager to work with government and other partners to meet these commitments.

5. In response to the issues the Committee is exploring as part of this

inquiry, University Alliance’s recommendations can be summarised as follows:

a. On graduate outcomes and the use of destination data, we

encourage the higher education sector, government and other stakeholders to continue to support the development of tools seeking to better understand graduate outcomes, all while ensuring their appropriate contextualisation.

b. On social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students, we recommend support for existing and new initiatives aimed at tackling particular gaps in higher education participation and success (e.g. support for part-time and mature students, addressing gaps based on socio-economic status and/or ethnic group).

c. On the quality and effectiveness of teaching, we recommend universities continue to work with government and other stakeholders to build on existing initiatives that showcase and drive teaching excellence.

d. On the role of the Office for Students, we recommend that the new regulatory body’s approach to risk, regulation and registration conditions recognise existing robust accountability and quality mechanisms within the higher education system.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

6. There continues to be a salary premium for graduate universities. As noted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2016, “despite the recent fall in the average graduate real wage, their wage relative to school-leavers’ has remained relatively unchanged. Indeed, at any given age, the wage differential between graduates and school-leavers has stayed essentially unchanged across birth cohorts.”2

7. This year’s release of Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data provides further helpful context on graduate salary outcomes five years after the completion of their first degree, building upon existing measures of graduate outcomes. A large portion of courses continue to produce graduates with salaries that are above the median salary for 25-29 year olds (currently £21,000).

                                                       2 https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn185.pdf

VAL0061

 

8. Notably, Alliance universities continue to perform very strongly on measures for graduates in employment and further study, which reflects their strong focus on employability, extensive links with employers and efforts to align study programmes closely with the needs of industry. For example, the most recent Destination of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) record for the 2015/16 academic year, produced by HESA, shows that Alliance universities have among the highest proportion of graduates in full-time paid work 3.5 years after they completed their studies.

9. However, the value of a degree must not solely be based on the

measurement of salary outcomes of 25-29 year olds. The social benefits of attending university, such as the benefits associated with the exposure to new ideas, the opportunities for first-generation university students to gain social capital and to have a greater choice of career pathways upon completion of their studies, must be considered as part of any discussion on graduate outcomes.

10.Alliance universities play a particular role in preparing students from a

wide range of backgrounds for careers that will allow them to thrive and make positive contributions to the cities and regions where they live. Graduates may choose to pursue careers in areas where salaries may be lower but the social impact of their work may be of tremendous value for their communities, such as teaching and nursing.

11.Graduate outcomes data such as LEO may not also fully capture the

positive economic and social benefits associated with learners pursuing various forms of study throughout their working lives to gain new skills. University Alliance educates 41% of the UK’s part-time students, and many of these students are making strong economic and social contributions during their studies, as well as after them.

12.The use of graduate outcomes data, including, for example, the use of

LEO as a supplementary metric in the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), needs to be properly contextualised. Many other factors that can impact graduate earnings, such as the decision to be self-employed and variations in economic conditions between regions, are also not reflected in this measurement.

13.Regarding graduate outcomes and the use of destination data, we

recommend the following:

a. The higher education sector, government and other stakeholders continue to support the ongoing development of data collection tools seeking to better understand graduate outcomes, such as HESA’s Graduate Outcomes record, evolving from the DLHE survey;

b. These new tools and the way in which they are used need to be appropriately contextualised to recognise the economic and social value of the academic, professional and technical education Alliance universities provide in Britain’s cities and regions.

VAL0061

 

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

14.With the expansion of higher education and universities’ ongoing commitments to increase their outreach, access and support activities through their Access Agreements, important progress has been made to ensure under-represented and disadvantaged groups of students are able to pursue a university education, succeed in their studies and transition to an enriching career following their studies. Alliance universities as a mission group are above benchmark on both access and retention, providing students from all backgrounds with life-changing opportunities, paying attention to every step on a student’s journey, empowering and supporting them to succeed.

15.For example, the University of Brighton’s widening participation work has been recognised by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) for its positive impact on pre-16 attainment raising in the university’s target schools, and the Coventry University Group has been recognised for its efforts in delivering flexible and affordable higher education provision that allows students at campuses in Coventry, Scarborough and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to fit other commitments around their study.

16.However, universities recognise that further progress is required to

address the challenges that remain around fair access and participation. As noted by the current Director of Fair Access to Higher Education in a publication released by OFFA in August 2017, “our higher education system does not yet offer true equality of opportunity”. Gaps in entry to higher education based on socio-economic status and/or ethnic group, among other factors, still persist. As OFFA’s responsibilities transition to the Office for Students, there is an opportunity for government, universities, schools, employers and other stakeholders to build on accomplishments to date and make greater progress in ensuring students from a diverse range of backgrounds are able to access the form of higher education that is best for them and obtain the benefits associated with it.

17.Furthermore, as identified by numerous groups including University

Alliance in our February 2017 Ladder and Lifeline report, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of part-time and mature students in higher education in the past decade. The overall structure of the funding system (which tends to favour young, full-time, first degree students), the reduction in training offered by employers, limited availability of part-time study loans, debt aversion and limited information, advice and guidance are among the factors that have resulted in this decline. In order to ensure these students can find out about, and access, the range of learning opportunities available to them, a range of incentives, such as the re-introduction of Individual Learning Accounts, the broadening of the Apprenticeship Levy to cover a wider range of courses and the introduction of a ‘Help to Learn Bonus’ (a top up to support people who invest their own money in courses), can be used to further encourage study among part-time and mature students. Lifelong learning can play a

VAL0061

 

greater role in the achievement of government priorities related to productivity, place and social mobility.

18.Newer forms of provision, such as Degree Apprenticeships, can also be used to improve access and participation in higher education, as well as social mobility, as long as they have parity of esteem with other higher education qualifications. Through their strong partnerships with industry, Alliance universities are committed to the success of Higher and Degree Apprenticeships: they offer over 120 programmes, and a further 80 programmes are currently in development.

19.We recognise that some of the solutions proposed to tackle the existing

challenges related to social justice in higher education and to support disadvantaged students require additional financial support from government. Through Access Agreements and other reporting requirements, universities are committed to ensuring these funds are spent in an effective manner.

20.Regarding social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students, we recommend the following:

a. The government continue to support the expansion of widening participation and social mobility initiatives undertaken by universities, as outlined in their Access Agreements and other activities, as the regulatory responsibility for fair access and participation in higher education in England transitions from OFFA to the OfS.

b. The government work with universities, employers, schools, communities and other stakeholders to consider the implementation of new initiatives to further support access and success of disadvantaged students, such as part-time and mature learners, in higher education.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

21.Alliance universities have a long and proud tradition of excellence in teaching. By designing our courses for employers, we keep our teaching relevant. By constantly innovating, we keep it fit for a fast-changing world.

22.University Alliance has been pleased to engage with government throughout the development of the TEF to date and welcome its intention to use the Framework as a way to champion success and drive improvement. As TEF enters its third year, and as subject-level pilots are introduced, it is important that it continue to be developed in a constructive matter. It must reflect different models of teaching excellence which exist in varied forms across UK higher education providers, and it must support innovation in teaching and learning.

VAL0061

 

23.We recognise that the Framework continues to be tweaked to improve accountability. We look forward to further understanding the impacts of changes to metrics in future iterations of TEF, such as the marking of top and bottom absolute values and the inclusion of supplementary metrics around graduate outcomes and grade inflation. We welcome the option for providers with a high percentage of part-time students to submit an additional page of quantitative information to supplement their metrics.

24.Many of our member institutions also look forward to engaging with the

subject-level TEF pilots, as it will provide an opportunity to fully understand how such an exercise will work in practice, as well as how students will ultimately benefit from the availability of such information.

25.As the TEF has taken shape, University Alliance has developed a Teaching

Excellence Alliance programme to promote excellent teaching and learning. It is designed to better understand and define – as well as champion and showcase – excellent teaching at Alliance universities. It is also aimed to support the development of this distinctive Alliance excellence in academic-employer engagement and student support. The pilot year of the programme has provided opportunities for administrators, professors and students from Alliance universities to share best practices and test new ways of designing innovative courses that respond to real-world challenges in multidisciplinary environments.

26.The University Alliance Doctoral Training Alliance also showcases Alliance

universities’ strengths in ensuring their education responds to industry needs. The DTA is the largest multi-partner and only nationwide doctoral training initiative of its kind – it is aimed at producing independent, highly-employable researchers with expertise and skills in strategically-important research areas (currently applied biosciences for health, energy and social policy). Through the DTA, research students are able to access a broader professional network where they can collaborate and share knowledge.

27.Regarding quality and effectiveness of teaching, we recommend that the TEF be developed so it can work best as a tool for students, and to ensure that innovation in higher education teaching and learning can take shape and be appropriately supported.

The role of the Office for Students

28.As further information on how the OfS may operate upon its creation is made available, we will be fully engaging in activities and discussions related to how the new regulatory body will take shape. We look forward to participating in the Department for Education’s consultation on the OfS and its regulatory framework, and we are currently reviewing the recently issued consultation documents with a view to making a response. In broad terms, we will make the case that the new regulatory body’s approach to risk, regulation and registration conditions should be efficient

VAL0061

 

and recognise existing robust accountability and quality mechanisms within the higher education system.

October 2017

VAL0013

Written Evidence submitted by the University of Derby Introduction 1. The University of Derby is a higher education provider based in the East

Midlands, we currently have over 23,000 students studying through a variety of pathways including on campus, online distance learning, and through national and international collaborative arrangements. We also offer apprenticeships from level 2 to 7 and further education courses through Buxton & Leek College.

2. We have one of the most complex and diverse undergraduate student bodies in the sector. Nearly 20% of our full-time undergraduate entrants are from the lowest HE participation neighbourhoods, 1 in 3 are mature learners, 14% have a declared disability and 20% are from a Black or Ethnic Minority background.

Executive Summary 3. Any reporting on graduate outcomes and destinations data should always be

in the context of benchmark data and not be based on absolute values alone. A key factor which should be accounted for when generating employment outcomes benchmarks is where geographically graduates find work.

4. There are a number of issues with the new LEO dataset which need addressing, including the ability to distinguish between full and part-time work. Alongside employment data, the broader societal, cultural and regional impacts of graduates should be considered.

5. The current system of tuition fees is a progressive model that has been good for social mobility and teaching quality. Investment in the sector should be protected to ensure that universities can continue to deliver in these areas.

6. Universities are well placed to help disadvantaged students climb the ladder

of opportunity. The University of Derby is championing the issue locally, but we believe that the government should think about reintroducing maintenance grants to support disadvantaged students through higher education and improve retention.

7. Two-year degrees would not be appropriate for students with lower prior

educational attainment, as this would adversely affect their degree classification outcomes.

8. The government could consider distributing research funding more evenly

across the sector to encourage excellence and raise teaching standards Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

VAL0013

9. Differences in absolute employment outcomes across different universities are

largely due to differences in prior educational achievement and parental income. The aim should be to control for these factors and assess the true impact that an institution has on its graduates’ employment prospects. Any reporting on graduate outcomes and destinations data should therefore be in the context of benchmark data and not based on absolute values alone.

10. To some extent this is already achieved in both the UK Employment

Performance Indicators (Table E1) and the Teaching Excellence Framework, where destinations data is published alongside provider-specific benchmarks. These benchmarks take into account factors such as subject studied, entry qualifications, age on entry, ethnicity, sex, disability and POLAR3 data. However, a key factor that is not currently included in any benchmarking calculations, but has an influence over a graduate’s employment outcome, is where geographically they find work. This means taking into account not only where the provider is based, but also how mobile its graduates are. This benchmarking factor is critical and must be accounted for when comparing the employment outputs of various providers. Using graduate outcomes data (primarily salary) without controlling for the local labour market in which a provider is operating will naturally favour the London institutions and penalise the many regionally rooted institutions.

11. In addition to the lack of geographical benchmarking, there are also several

specific issues with the LEO dataset that need to be addressed before it is used to inform TEF rating or anything else that may impact on universities’ reputation:

11.1 There is no distinction between full and part time work and self-

employment data is not included at all. This potentially creates several illusory differences. For example, it will negatively affect certain subject areas, such as creative arts, where many graduates work part time while generating additional income through their artistic practice.

11.2 The LEO is not a truly longitudinal dataset. It does not track a single

cohort over time, rather it takes earnings data in 2014/15 and looks at three different cohorts of graduates – 08/09 for five year data, 10/11 for three years and 12/13 for one year. For several institutions employment rates seemingly decrease as graduate’s progress through their careers, but a more accurate interpretation of this data would be that the institution has improved graduate outcomes over time. This is an important point that seems to have been missed in most of the press reports on LEO data.

11.3 The data is unavoidably out of date. Five years after graduation data

looks at graduates from the 2008/09 academic year. As we know, the world of higher education moves quickly, and it doesn’t seem right to judge institutions on their historic performance. For example the

VAL0013

University of Derby has invested significantly in our employability strategy over recent years, and any positive impact from this would not be captured in such historical data.

12. More generally, we need to expand the debate about value for money beyond

the narrow confines of employment outcomes and direct economic benefit. Other measures of impact should be considered as well, such as the societal, cultural and regional impacts of graduates. Additionally, the personal transformative effect that university study can have on individual graduates needs to be considered. While more difficult to measure, these other factors are just as important and should not be ignored.

13. We also need to reconsider how we define ‘graduate employment’. Derby trains

many students in areas such as nursing and social work, which are skilled professions that are not typically recognised with graduate-level salaries. These roles are of considerable benefit to society and we should not risk undermining the quality of their training if we want to have high quality professionals.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students 14. The current system of tuition fees is a progressive model that has enabled

more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to access higher education. In 2016, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in England were 74% more likely to go to university than they were a decade ago. However, the government is right to keep the system under review to ensure that it is both fair and affordable. We support plans to raise the student loan repayment threshold to £25,000 and argue that the government should look again at the interest rates for student loans.

15. Investment in the UK higher education sector should be protected to ensure

that universities can continue to offer high quality teaching. It should be noted that changes to the student finance system could disproportionately affect institutions who take the majority of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds, these institutions tend to be more reliant on tuition fees income. In 2016, 73% of our income was derived from tuition fees and education contracts. In the same period, the average for Russell Group universities was 40%.

16. The University of Derby is committed to social justice and providing support

for disadvantaged students. Almost 20% of our full-time first degree undergraduates are from the lowest HE participation neighbourhoods and are often the first member of their family to go to university. UK-domiciled BME (black and minority ethnic) students and those with a declared disability make up 19.6% and 14.1% of our undergraduate body, respectively. Overall, 97% of our undergraduates are from state school backgrounds.

VAL0013

17. In 2017, we launched an Equality and Social Mobility Unit within the University, which will work to improve social mobility in the region, champion the widening participation agenda across the institution and lead academic research on social and equality issues.

18. Derby is one of 12 pilot ‘Opportunity Areas’ identified by the government as

social mobility cold spots. Our Vice-Chancellor, Professor Kathryn Mitchell, chairs the local Opportunity Area board and is working with education providers, employers and other organisations across the city to help young people reach their potential. Our academic and professional services staff also chair and serve on the Opportunity Area sub-groups, which allows us to play a direct role in the creation of strategic plans for primary, secondary and post-16 settings. The University recently set a new target to increase the number staff serving as governors in Derby secondary schools, which will help us to better understand and contribute to tackling issues locally.

19. The University of Derby has taken on a leading role in the National

Collaborative Outreach Programme, which was set up to support the government’s aims of boosting the numbers of people in higher education from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. We lead the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Collaborative Outreach Programme (DANCOP) and are an active partner in the Higher Horizons+ programme, which provides a focus for collaboration with around 20 higher education institutions and further education colleges, as well as local schools, employers and other stakeholders.

20. Our programme of schools and college outreach activity, called ‘Progress to

Success’, provides a ‘drip-feed’ set of interventions from Year 7 to 11. The programme is led by our Widening Access team and aims to make a positive impact on social mobility through providing activities for a wide range of disadvantaged learner cohorts in schools: low participation neighbourhoods, free school meals, pupil premium, white working class boys, BME, looked after children and learners with disabilities. The full programme of activity is offered to schools across Derbyshire with high numbers of disadvantaged students. Engagement in the Progress to Success framework increased from 2,162 learners in 41 activities in 2014-15 to 3,229 learners in 66 activities in 2015-16. Activities are highly targeted, with 82% of the 2015-16 cohort living in POLAR3 Q1/2 wards, and 77% of parents having no experience of higher education.

21. Student disadvantage does not end with enrolment. It is vital that

disadvantaged students continue to receive support while they are in university. This ‘student lifecycle approach’ is something we are looking closely at, and one of the initiatives we introduced this academic year was to provide free bus travel for all students to help lower the costs of studying at university. However, we would encourage the government to reintroduce maintenance grants to ensure that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are supported through university. We believe this would have a beneficial effect on student retention rates across the sector.

VAL0013

22. The introduction of two-year degrees would benefit some students looking to

fast-track their studies, but it would not be an appropriate route for all students. For students who have lower prior educational attainment, the first or foundation year of a degree plays an important role in the final degree outcome.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

23. The quality and effectiveness of teaching in universities could be improved across the sector if the government were to consider changes to the way that funding for research is allocated. Currently, much of the funding is distributed on the basis of research quality and, as a result, it is concentrated around a small number of institutions. If research funding were distributed more equitably across the sector then this would help to spread research expertise across the country. In turn, this would raise teaching standards by enabling academics to bring more of their own original research into the curriculum. Many universities, such as the University of Derby, instead rely on contributions from tuition fee income to deliver research projects.

 

October 2017

VAL0011

Written Evidence Submitted by the University of Nottingham Introduction 1. The University of Nottingham is a large, teaching-focused and research-intensive university with nearly 34,000 students in the UK and over 11,000 students at our campuses in China and Malaysia; it has a £650 million turnover and contributes £677 million annually to our local East Midlands economy. We have a long tradition of commitment to teaching quality and excellent student outcomes, receiving a Gold rating in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). In 2017, the University was named University of the Year for Graduate Employment in the Times Good University Guide. Executive Summary 2. This submission provides information on each of the five areas identified in the inquiry, as well as some comments more generally on value for money in higher education. The main points we wish to make are:

In assessing value for money in higher education in terms of graduate outcomes, such factors as personal development and graduate roles dedicated to the public good must be taken into account that will not be fully captured by graduate salaries.

The University of Nottingham actively and successfully supports access to higher education by less advantaged groups, but a holistic approach across the entire education system is required for greater progress in this area.

Transparency around senior pay is essential but realism is required regarding the need for salary levels sufficient to attract the talent that will bring about the returns that students want from their education.

There appears to be inadequate appreciation in government of the extensive efforts that have been made in recent years to improve teaching quality and the student academic experience.

The Office for Students needs to respect institutional autonomy and provide a robust, risk-based and proportionate regulatory framework for the sector and its students.

The economic, social, cultural and reputational contributions of higher education to the UK need to be considered when determining value for money.

Graduate Outcomes and the use of Destination Data

VAL0011

3. The recently published Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data are clearly a useful means for gaining an overview of the implications in salary terms of studying particular subjects and attending particular universities, and we look forward to these data being refined further to increase their reliability and usefulness. The LEO data shows that Nottingham graduates fare very well in financial terms, but we would still want to stress that LEO in itself understates the contribution that higher education makes to the lives and well-being of those who attend university. Academic study opens new horizons for students that go well beyond the particular skills and knowledge needed for their careers; while the range of extra–curricular activities and personal development opportunities that a university offers leaves a permanent and valuable imprint on our graduates. 4. The LEO data also falls short in measuring the full contribution of graduates to society and the economy. Salary is a poor proxy for this contribution when it comes to relatively low-paid occupations in such crucial fields as healthcare, education, the voluntary sector, social work and the arts. Higher education enables graduates to fulfil roles that are essential to the fabric of our society and culture, and where the rewards for fulfilling those roles are serving society’s needs, rather than attaining high salaries. 5. Both the current Destination of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) survey (six months after graduation) and its replacement, from December 2017, the Graduate Outcomes survey (15 months after graduation) are relatively short term, although the additional questions in the Graduate Outcomes survey may provide a better indication of perceived value of the degree than the current DLHE questions. Nonetheless, there must be grave doubts about representing value for money by immediate experience and a short-term destination rather than determining it over a longer period of time. LEO obviously helps in this regard but a destinations survey that had a longer timescale would mean that graduates were better able to identify the benefits of their university education, having had more opportunity to apply it. The ability to track people over a sustained period via HMRC data should render this possible. Social Justice in Higher Education and Support for Disadvantaged Students 6. Universities are involved in numerous activities to broaden access to higher education and to ensure the success of all those who embark on our courses. At the University of Nottingham, ‘Nottingham Potential’ is firmly established and providing evidence of impact. This is a £6m expansion of the University’s widening participation outreach for learners from less advantaged backgrounds. Last year, these learners benefitted from over 90,000 places on our activities. Highlights over the past five years include the following:

- The opening of three Nottingham Potential Learning Centres, in partnership with IntoUniversity, in less advantaged communities across Nottingham, to provide after-school homework support and other activities.

- The doubling of places from 200 to 400 on our July summer schools for higher achieving students.

VAL0011

- The extension of our Ambition Nottingham programme, which provides extra-curricular support for higher achieving students, so that it now runs from the first year of secondary school through to sixth form.

- The introduction of the Pathways to Law and Pathways to STEM programmes, in partnership with the Sutton Trust.

- The expansion of our primary schools’ programme in terms of both scale and reach, with a particular focus on discovering university and engaging with learning through curriculum-linked activities.

- The extension of our long-standing work with mature students to include more measures to aid successful transition to Nottingham and retention.

- Sponsoring or co-sponsoring three academies; including taking on and turning round a failing school that has now achieved a good OFSTED report. The Nottingham University Academy of Science & Technology is rapidly establishing itself as a top STEM school in Nottingham.

Other activities of longer standing include our schools and colleges service, which has been providing information and advice about higher education in over 100 local schools annually for well over a decade. 7. Over the three years 2015-6 to 2017-18, the University will have spent a total of £51m on widening participation. This represents on average 30.9% of higher fees income and £17m annually (i.e. equivalent to £956 of the £9,250 fee). Of this total, we will have spent £8m - on average £2.7m annually – on our comprehensive outreach programme, which ranges from academy sponsorship to summer schools for sixth formers to curriculum-linked activities for primary school children. Means-tested bursaries for low-income students will account for a total of £36.1m over the three years. On average, 35.7% of our UK intake is eligible for these bursaries, which give students the confidence that a university education is affordable and reduces the need to work part-time during study, thus boosting their chance of succeeding on their course. Our broader widening participation strategy includes a flexible admissions policy that considers contextual factors and special entry pathways. 8. It is clear that such outreach work and bursaries do yield results. The proportion of students from a low-income background has risen from 17% in 2004 to 24% in 2016, making us one of the most improved universities in the Russell Group. This is even more impressive when seen as a rise in the actual number of students of over 50%, from 916 in 2006 to 1430 in 2016. Students from local widening participation schools and colleges now comprise 10% of our intake, up from 4% in 2002. Half the students progressing from these schools reside in deprived postcodes, more than twice the proportion progressing to us from non-partner UK schools. Of those who participate in our summer schools, 22% successfully take up places at the University of Nottingham, and nearly 30% at other Russell Group universities – double the rate for otherwise similar students. Likewise, over 20% of Access students attending our Nursing taster days enrol here. 9. There are, though, inevitably limits to what universities can achieve in widening participation independent of the rest of the education system. Our high academic standards and desire for our students to achieve academic success require us to look for students with appropriate qualifications at entry

VAL0011

(even after taking account of students’ context). Measures to ensure all children reach their full potential during their schooling are therefore a central element of access to higher education. At Nottingham, we contribute to this through sponsoring or co-sponsoring three academies. All stakeholders, though, need to play a part in funding and supporting our schools so that all children, regardless of background, can gain the necessary qualifications for admission to our top universities. 10. The choice of the right course and institution is essential for academic success and it is notable in this regard that the recent HEPI report on student satisfaction found that a third of students would have chosen another course if they could choose again. It can reasonably be argued that this reflects a lack of high quality, impartial careers advice and guidance in schools, which means that students are coming to university with less informed expectations of their subject, course, university experience and graduate outcomes. Careers advice in schools for able students who are considering university (which was greatly reduced last decade) would help to address social justice issues: students from non-traditional backgrounds could be helped to understand the difference between institutions from different mission groups, and the differences between A level and degree level study. This would help them to make choices that provide the value that they seek. 11. Social justice is more than just admission to higher education, of course. We are aware of the evidence nationally that students from a BME or low income background are statistically less likely to attain a First/Upper Second degree class and (along with disabled students) have generally poorer employment outcomes. In response to concerns in this area, Nottingham, in common with many other universities, has invested heavily in facilities and personnel to support a diverse group of students once they are admitted. Financial advice, mental health and counselling provision, tutors in residential accommodation, study skills support, have all been greatly expanded in recent years in recognition of the needs of our students and to ensure their retention and academic success. Similarly, significant investment in our careers and employability service has occurred, with a particular focus on supporting BME, mature, low income and disabled students. We will continue to explore and address issues around differential attainment and would welcome further research and guidance at the national level to assist us in these efforts. Senior Management Pay in Universities 12. Public concern over perceived high rates of pay is understandable in bodies such as universities with a charitable mission and in receipt of public money and recently imposed tuition fees. At the same time understanding is required that universities like Nottingham operate successfully in an increasingly competitive global market with increased staff mobility. This leads to a requirement to pay a market premium to fill roles (often senior) where the required skills and experience are in short supply and in high demand.

VAL0011

13. At Nottingham, senior salaries in total account for 0.4% of our annual turnover. Salary figures quoted for universities are often inflated by the fact that the high pay and allowances of Clinical Academics are set by the NHS and therefore are outwith our control. We are transparent and publish salary details for all staff earning over £100,000 (1.47% of our staff, of which over a third are Clinical Academics) in our annual Financial Statements. All staff on the University salary scale receive the living wage as decreed by the Living Wage Foundation and our casual workers (often students) are paid at least the minimum wage even if their age allowed us to pay them at a lower rate. 14. With regard to the salary of Vice-Chancellors, international comparators are important, given the global market for such posts in top universities. In the USA 40 university heads earn over $1m and the average Australian Vice-Chancellor salary is reported to be $890,000 AUS dollars (£530,000). It is also relevant that a FTSE 350 company with a comparable income to a University pays their CEO an average of £500,000, and this basic salary accounts for less than a quarter of their total remuneration. The ratio of Vice-Chancellor pay to that the median salary of all staff is also far less than for chief executives in business (9:1 at Nottingham versus 129:1 in FTSE companies). The rationale behind the Vice-Chancellor’s salary at Nottingham, and its relation to student and staff numbers, turnover, national economic contribution, teaching excellence and research effort are all set out in the University’s website at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/about/vice-chancellor/remuneration.aspx. 15. Vice-Chancellors and their senior colleagues are charged with achieving value for students for the fees that they pay. Their salary at Nottingham should be seen in the context of the £345 million we spend annually on our students through our operating costs, cutting-edge teaching and research facilities, and first class accommodation and estates. Students achieve value for money if these resources are handled efficiently and targeted at meeting their needs and supporting their ambitions. The contribution of universities to the regional and national economy (spelt out in paragraph 27 below) and the social benefit of maximising this contribution, further justifies salary levels geared to securing the necessary talent. 16. It is, of course, essential that senior salaries are set in a fair, objective and transparent manner. Salaries for senior staff and the Vice-Chancellor are set by the Remuneration Committee - part of the University’s Council, its governing body - which comprises independent external members of Council, who possess commercial and public sector pay knowledge and expertise. In common with practice in much of the public and private sector, while the Vice-Chancellor sits on the Remuneration Committee to determine the salaries of their senior staff, their own salary is considered and set by the independent external members acting alone. The Vice-Chancellor plays no part in this decision and is required to absent her/himself from meetings where this discussion takes place. We have recently taken steps to strengthen further and communicate better the workings of Remuneration Committee and even more changes are in train. We note government proposals for the Office for Students to monitor senior salaries and are confident that our processes and resulting salaries are appropriate and transparent.

VAL0011

Quality and Effectiveness of Teaching 17. The emphasis placed by government on TEF and other mechanisms designed to incentivise a focus on teaching in universities should not be based on any presumption that there is an inadequate emphasis on students and teaching, particularly in research-intensive universities. In reality, there has been close scrutiny of all forms of student feedback, including the National Student Survey, to identify and take measures to improve the student academic experience. This has led at Nottingham to large investments in teaching, library and study spaces; the wide-scale promotion of staff who prove effective educators; development of IT tools to support learning and teaching; and the strengthening of many academic and tutoring practices. Despite the absence of public funding for capital expenditure we have invested over £60m in new buildings and facilities specifically for teaching and learning since 2014 with similar spend commitments over the next three years. 18. Nor should one overlook the benefits to students of being taught in a research intensive environment. World-leading research informs our undergraduate and postgraduate courses, thereby giving our students access to the latest developments in their subjects and ensuring they are educated by teachers who understand and are fully engaged in the research process. Opportunities, including for undergraduate students, to carry out and learn from research strengthen critical thinking and other employability skills in our students. We develop Masters students in professional areas and PhD students in world-changing STEM subjects that respond to government priorities. In these ways, expenditure by universities on their research activities has direct benefits for the education and development of students. 19. Education in our universities is increasingly targeted on giving our graduates the skills to thrive in the workforce and to become the entrepreneurs and innovators of the future. This includes working collaboratively with employers and sector-wide professional bodies on designing our courses and on providing all students with the opportunity to undertake work placements. At Nottingham, we are currently active in ensuring that all of our students are provided with a range of professional competencies in their core curriculum. The new degree apprenticeships will further strengthen the links between universities and business (as well as public sector employers). We are developing apprenticeship programmes in Advanced Clinical Practice, Food Science, Sustainability and Social Work for delivery from 2018 onwards, and we are actively considering programmes across the University in Engineering, Business and Management, Banking & Finance, Chemical and Industrial Science and other sectors in response to employer demand. A BSc Accountancy course is already in place that is delivered in collaboration with PricewaterhouseCoopers. 20. The regulatory framework for assuring the quality and effectiveness of teaching in our universities needs to recognise all of these trends and developments and avoid adding costs and burdens that detract from achieving educational aims. TEF metrics need to be chosen carefully in this regard; the educational environment of a University cannot be measured only by

VAL0011

the contact hours that a student has with staff, for example, and ranges from physical learning facilities to development of cohort identity and purpose. Given this wider learning landscape, it is perhaps unsurprising that educational attainment does not correlate strongly to contact hours, and giving prominence to such a metric could distort behaviour unhelpfully. Continuing to impose various quality assurance reporting requirements upon universities separate from TEF involves a duplication of effort and additional costs, a situation made more manifest by recent changes to TEF to add a judgement on threshold quality as well as excellence. TEF (and its expansion to subject level) should be accompanied by a commensurate reduction in other burdens. The Role of the Office for Students 21. The higher education sector is made up of institutions with widely different missions and approaches and it is essential that the Office of Students (OfS) supports and facilitates this diversity through respecting the autonomy of universities and achieving the right balance between autonomy and accountability; too much concentration on the latter compromises universities’ ability to deliver on every aspect of their mission. In short, autonomy is necessary to enable universities to deliver what government expects and accountability is necessary to ensure they are delivering. 22. It is vital to the health of the sector that it continues to be characterised by high quality and standards, and financially sound and well-run institutions. The OfS has a fundamental role in this regard and must take a risk-based and proportionate approach to regulation, concentrating on universities that have substantial financial or quality challenges, and avoiding imposing unnecessary costs on established universities with a proven track record and manifest strengths. 23. The OfS must also take into account fully the international nature of our top universities and avoid regulatory actions and statements that damage them in the global market place. The University of Nottingham with its campuses in Asia is subject to multiple national regulatory regimes and international cooperation between the OfS and overseas agencies would be greatly welcomed; and should prove of increasing value generally as transnational education grows in size and importance. 24. In promoting the interests and role of students in higher education, the OfS needs to understand the close partnership working that already takes place with students in our universities. The collaboration with students in improving education and welfare at Nottingham goes well beyond any mere transactional, contractual relationship; the work of the OfS therefore needs to be based on an assumption that students are members, not customers, of their places of study. 25. The principal method of protecting the interests of students is to ensure that funding levels per student are sufficient to provide them with a high quality of education. Guaranteeing the financial sustainability of the teaching activities of universities must therefore be a primary goal of the OfS. This is of

VAL0011

particular significance with regard to STEM and high-cost, strategically important subjects. 26. Universities will be meeting the costs of the OfS and it is therefore important that it be run as efficiently and with as tight a remit as possible in order to avoid being a financial drain on the sector. This will be helped through ensuring effective co-operation with UKRI. Efficiency can also be promoted by the OfS supporting and facilitating collaboration between universities (within the boundaries of what is allowed by competition law), the strategic partnership between the universities of Nottingham and Birmingham are a prime example of what can be achieved in this regard. Other Aspects of Value for Money 27. Universities make a huge economic contribution to the UK through providing an expert, skilled and knowledgeable workforce; through excellent research, innovation, and knowledge exchange; and through attracting large numbers of international students to our shores. Jo Johnson in his recent speech to Universities UK quoted a study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showing that 20 per cent of UK economic growth over a two-decade period came from graduate skills accumulation, and that a 1 per cent increase in the share of the workforce with a degree raises long-run productivity growth by between 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent. Each year, the University of Nottingham contributes more than £1 billion to the national economy; £677 million to the regional economy; and supports 18,000 jobs. 1 in 24 of all jobs in the city of Nottingham is reliant on the University. Regional co-operation involving the University was exemplified last year by a ‘Nottingham in Parliament’ day showcasing the city to parliamentarians, other distinguished guests, and the media. 28. Universities also greatly enrich the social and cultural life of the nation. Education and research in the arts and social sciences, the provision of museums and galleries and social facilities open to the public, student volunteering activities, and the bringing together of members of diverse communities from across the globe all have a profound impact on the lives of UK citizens. A good, recent example of this in Nottingham has been the Dinosaurs of China exhibition in the city, a world exclusive exhibition of feathered dinosaurs attracting over 110,000 visitors so far and made possible through the University’s connections with China. 29. The UK also benefits from the ‘soft power’ derived from having large numbers of students from other countries educated here and then returning to positions of influence and seniority in their own countries. The amount of goodwill that is generated towards the UK by this means, and the networking contacts provided for new business opportunities, cannot be overstated. With its campuses in China and Malaysia, the University of Nottingham makes an especially large contribution in this area. 30. In regard to value for money for students with respect to the tuition fees they have paid, it is important to bear in mind that the University’s engagement with our graduates is life long and our alumni have access to many facilities and

VAL0011

services long after graduation – including open source learning materials and involvement in University supported global networks of former students. 31. It is also the case that many of the University’s activities, and the benefits that flow from them, are made possible not by public funding or income from tuition fees, but by voluntary donations from alumni and others. The University has raised £242 million in its most recent campaign to improve student education, provide bursaries and grants to students, and support research in healthcare and other areas of vital importance to society as a whole. October 2017

VAL0066

Written Evidence submitted by the University of Portsmouth

About the University of Portsmouth

1. The University of Portsmouth became a university in 1992 although its history dates to 1869 and the formation of the Portsmouth and Gosport School of Science and the Art.

2. The University was awarded Gold in the 2017 Teaching Excellence Framework

(TEF) and was ranked first in the UK by The Economist on the basis of the value it adds to its graduates’ salaries five years after graduation (in light of our graduates’ demographics, prior attainment etc.).

3. In 2017, the University is ranked 37th in the Guardian League Table of UK universities and is in the ‘Top 100’ of worldwide universities under 50 years of age.

4. The University total student population is about 24,000; it is the fourth largest

employer in Portsmouth and has a significant economic impact. In 2015/16 the University’s activity supported around 12,800 jobs in the UK of which 7,900 jobs were in Portsmouth. For each person directly employed by the University, it supported 5 jobs somewhere in the UK. In 2015/16 the University also added around £1.1 billion value (or ‘Gross Value Added’) to the UK Economy. This included £476 million in Portsmouth.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

5. Given the importance of universities to their students’ lives, and the level of public investment in universities, it is right that we are assessed on the basis of our graduates’ outcomes.

6. Raw data, or absolute outcome measures, should not be used to assess

universities. For instance, some universities have high entry requirements and focus primarily on high return subjects – such as economics and law. They may have very good graduate outcomes as measured by absolute private economic returns (see IFS Working Paper W16/06, p.31). But this conveys no information about the value those universities add to their graduates or the quality of their education and teaching.

7. Assessing graduates’ outcomes by absolute measures would be similar to assessing gyms on the basis of the absolute level of fitness of their members. Some gyms might only admit very fit people. Very fit people might go in, and very fit people might come out, but no-one would be any the wiser about the quality of the gym.

8. This problem can be avoided by benchmarking graduate outcomes and

destination data so that universities are measured on the basis of the value they add to their graduates – on how far their graduates have travelled and

VAL0066

improved since they joined their university. The best measure of this would be learning gain data.

9. Currently, we lack reliable measures of learning gain. However, the University of Portsmouth is working in collaboration with the University of Southampton, Royal Holloway, and the University of the Arts on a HEFCE-funded learning gain project. The project aims to develop and trial psychometric questionnaires. The measures developed will enable universities to explore how undergraduates develop over the course of their degree.

10.The importance of benchmarking and measuring added value is why the TEF is very important. As it evolves, the TEF should maintain its focus on value-added measures and metrics.

11.It is important that graduates’ private economic returns are used to assess

graduate outcomes. But in judging the value of universities to society we should not focus exclusively on this measure. Universities and our graduates generate public economic returns – nurses are a good example – as well as both public and private cultural and social returns. For example, in addition to the economic value the University of Portsmouth brings to the City of Portsmouth, the annual 60,000 hours of student volunteering provides the community with many (hard to quantify) benefits. In addition, annually about 22% of our graduates remain in Portsmouth. They provide economic benefits – four-fifths of them are in professional or managerial positions – and their presence generates new cultural and social benefits as well as helping to maintain extant cultural and social benefits, such as Portsmouth’s Theatre Royal.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

12.The University of Portsmouth is proud of the success of its outreach work and in widening participation more generally. One quarter of our students are from low higher education participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3 Quintiles 1 and 2); over one third come from low income households (under £25,000pa); 24% of our students are black and minority ethnic (BME); and 10% of our students have a disability.

13.However, the University operates in an area of low higher education

participation within the south east. For instance, only 17% of 18 year olds in Havant applied to university by the January 2017 deadline. For Portsmouth North the figure was 21% and Portsmouth South 25%. The national average was 36%.

14.There are many reasons for this. To contribute to a solution the University

has created the ‘Portsmouth Scholarship’ scheme through which we will promote progression to higher education through peer-mentoring in local colleges and schools.

15.One problem some universities (although not the University of Portsmouth)

face in widening participation is the importance they place on league tables

VAL0066

that rank universities by their students’ prior attainment. This favours the recruitment of well-schooled students over those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The more universities are assessed by ‘value added’ measures, and the greater currency value added measures possess, the less this will be a problem.

16.Widening access is only half of the problem. Disadvantaged students need

support throughout their time at University. We believe that one of the main reasons the University of Portsmouth was awarded TEF Gold is due to the study and well-being support we provide to our diverse student body.

17.Our support includes diagnostic on-entry testing to enable tutors to

effectively direct students to additional academic support and free well-being support services, such as same-day advice sessions. Our Academic Skills Unit (ASK) provides 1:1 and group session tutorials for students and our Additional Support and Disability Advice Centre (ASDAC) offers advice and support to students with disabilities. Students are assessed and offered 1:1 or group training with study skills, assistive technology and mentoring, or onward referral to specialist services. Among other things, the University also provides our staff with training on Austim, mental health awareness and inclusive learning techniques.

Senior management pay in universities

18.It is right that higher-pay in universities is scrutinized, that universities’ approach to pay is transparent and that universities are accountable for the money they spend. However, accountability should be informed by a rational set of principles based on value for money and the recognition of good performance.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching 19. The University of Portsmouth gives a very high priority to teaching quality

and effectiveness issues. We have found the following practices particularly valuable.

20. Integrating real-life work experience into our curriculum and students’

learning makes our graduates more job-ready. This work experience includes conventional work placements and partnerships as well as activities that simulate the real world of work.

21. Activities include our Dental Academy (run in association with King’s College, London and the NHS) which trains dental professional teams using a full-simulation suite as well as providing real-life NHS dental care to members of the local community; a pharmacy dispensary, ‘Pharmacy Live’, which is a student area connected to a live Pharmacy with video/audio links into consulting rooms; and the University’s ‘Forensic Innovation Centre’. Through a partnership with Hampshire Constabulary the University has established an operational police forensic research facility. In addition to facilitating police forensic science and digital crime investigations, students have internship opportunities, access to professional mentors and are taught by

VAL0066

active Officers. The Centre won the Times Higher Education ‘Outstanding Employer Engagement’ Award in 2015.

22. The University also works in close collaboration with the University of Portsmouth’s Students’ Union (UPSU) to respond to students’ needs. Our Student Voice policy, ‘Listening to and responding to the student voice', sets out the mechanisms through which students are encouraged to voice their opinions and puts students at the heart of our quality assurance and enhancement system.

23. In partnership with UPSU, the University ensures that students play an active role in our review of courses and collaborative partnerships, as well inclusion in Course Approval Committees, Public Sector Regulatory Body (PSRB) accreditation and Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) visits.

24. The University also recognizes the need for continual improvement. In addition to the learning gain project referred to in paragraph 9 the University is leading on a HEFCE-funded ‘Changing Mindsets’ project focusing on closing the attainment gap for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students and students from low socio-economic backgrounds.

The role of the Office for Students (OfS) 25. The OfS should have a strong student voice, should be seen to have a strong

student voice, and should respond to students’ needs. If it does not meet these conditions it will lose legitimacy in the eyes of students. This will threaten the new regulatory system.

26. Many students, for example the University of Portsmouth’s Students’ Union

(UPSU), are sceptical that the OfS can maintain its legitimacy in students’ eyes without a student representative on its Board.

27. The Higher Education and Research Act (HERA), which created the OfS, aims

to create a greater market in higher education – with the OfS in the role of independent regulator much like OfCom or OfGem. Time should be given for the new Act and the OfS to operate. The HERA will re-order the higher education landscape in the UK, especially through the TEF. The OfS will force universities to improve the student experience – as indeed will competition from new providers. But change takes times. Politicians and the wider public must have patience and let the new reforms take effect before launching into another set of reforms.

28. Regulatory uncertainty and perpetual change, in what is already a period of

significant change and uncertainty for the university sector and country, is unlikely to improve the quality of universities’ performance and so will not improve the value for money proposition we can offer our students.

General comments

VAL0066

19. The means through which universities are funded – general taxation, fees and loans, or a graduate tax – is a societal decision and not for universities to determine.

20. However, access to university is important for social mobility. If university

is to be equally accessible to advantaged and disadvantaged students alike, it is important that there is no government cap on the number of students who can go to university in any one year.

21. Universities are also a significant source of export earnings (£11 billion in

2014/15) and, as implied in paragraph 4 above, significant economic actors in their cities and regions. In addition (and as stated in paragraph 11) universities and our graduates generate public economic benefits and hard to quantify social and cultural benefits.

22. UK universities are also world-leading. The UK has less than 1% of the

world’s population but accounts for 11% of world citations and 15% of the world’s most highly cited articles.

23. The UK is extremely attractive to international academics and has some of the most highly-ranked universities in the world.

24. This world-class status is not confined to the older, more prestigious universities. As noted paragraph 3, the University of Portsmouth is in the ‘Top 100’ of worldwide universities under 50 years of age.

25. Unlike other world-class UK economic actors, universities are well-spread

geographically across the whole of the UK. They are central to regional prosperity.

26. The University of Portsmouth hopes that whatever long-term higher

education funding model is adopted, it is consistent with improving social mobility, generating export earnings and economic value for the UK’s cities and regions, and maintaining the very world-class standard of UK universities.

October 2017

VAL0074

Written Evidence submitted by Which? Which? is the largest consumer organisation in the UK with more than 1.5 million members and supporters. We operate as an independent, apolitical, social enterprise working for all consumers and funded solely by our commercial ventures. We receive no government money, public donations, or other fundraising income. Which?’s mission is to make individuals as powerful as the organisations they have to deal with in their daily lives, by empowering them to make informed decisions and by campaigning to make people’s lives fairer, simpler and safer. Summary 1. Which? welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the Education Select

Committee Inquiry into Value for Money in Higher Education. We support the reforms to regulation and oversight of the higher education sector through introducing the OfS. These reforms have the potential to help to address many of the key issues in the higher education sector that Which? has campaigned on for many years.

2. Higher education is not a traditional consumer market. For example, students

play an important role in creating the value of a university education, including being responsible for self-study as part of their courses. However the regulatory system must change to reflect how the market for higher education has evolved. The current regulatory system was designed for a more homogenous sector and one in which students shouldered less of the financial cost. The new regulatory system must be fit for purpose to effectively protect students.

3. Ensuring students get value for money is a crucially important part of these

reforms. The financial cost of university means that making the right choice has taken on much greater importance than for previous generations of students. Without reform, it will be increasingly difficult to guard against students’ feeling that they have had a poor value experience.

4. Which? believes there are four key principles that should guide creation of

the OfS and its regulatory framework. Firstly, the OfS’s primary aim should be to serve students. The Government has outlined that students’ interests are at the core of the OfS’s work but the OFS has seven statutory duties which could potentially conflict. The government should make clear that in its interpretation of the OfS’s general statutory duties that its primary role is to further the interests of students.

5. Secondly, the OfS should have sufficient powers to meet its duty to students.

The Government should ensure that the new regulator is able to address consumer detriment. This should include the ability to enforce consumer law, and to accept super-complaints from designated bodies on behalf of students.

VAL0074

6. Thirdly, OfS must develop a comprehensive set of measures of value for money to help students when choosing which university to apply to.

7. Fourthly, the OfS should be independent from government and higher

education providers if it is to perform its duty to students. The OfS should set its own priorities to meet its statutory duties and determine how best to meet any strategic policy goals set by Government.

8. Finally, for the OfS to improve outcomes for consumers, it should ensure that

the views and experiences of students are represented and that its decision-making processes and proposed interventions are tested and challenged. The OfS must set out a broad range of methods to directly engage with students.

Introduction 9. Value for money in higher education is complex and while overall satisfaction

is high, many students also report concerns. The financial cost of university means that making the right choice has taken on much greater importance than for previous generations of students. But without reform, it will be increasingly difficult to guard against students’ feeling that they have had a poor value experience.

10. What students get for the money can vary significantly by their choice of subject and provider. Choosing the right course will always be a complex decision. Individuals may never know if they’ve made the correct decision until they commence their studies, or perhaps later.

11. With reforms to the student finance system in recent years, the need for a strong regulator to protect students is ever more important. Our research in 2014 found that three in ten students thought that their academic experience was poor value, and a quarter of students said that higher education had not helped them to develop the skills needed for work. This situation remains unchanged three years on, as the Higher Education Policy Institute’s Student Academic Experience Survey in 2017 shows that a third of higher education students (34%) still think they are receiving poor value for money across the UK.

12. Which? is pleased to see the reforms to the regulation and oversight of the

higher education sector through the establishment of a new student-focused regulator. Regulation should not be seen as a threat to institutions but as a means to strengthen and secure the reputation of UK higher education, as well as ensure individual students receive a quality academic experience.

13. Our evidence focuses on the Committee’s questions that are of most

relevance for Which?.

The role of the Office for Students The OfS’s primary aim should be to further the interests of students

VAL0074

14. It is vital that the OfS is primarily there to serve the interests of students. Therefore we welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that the OfS has the primary aim to deliver positive outcomes for students and that the Government’s recently published consultation includes four stated objectives that are all focused on students. However we have concerns that the OfS has seven statutory duties and that some of these duties, particularly “to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers”, could give rise to conflict with the interests of students in some circumstances. For example, the Government consultation states:

“Certain elements of the OfS’s activity, such as the imposition of individual ongoing registration conditions, may focus in particular on one or more of these. Equally important, however, is that the OfS will consider all of these in the decisions it makes across its functions. While an initiative or process may focus on one of these outcomes in particular, the OfS must nevertheless take the others into account when making decisions.1

15. This direction could confuse the regulator’s decision-making process, and in

some cases lead to poorer outcomes for students. The regulatory framework must reflect student outcomes as its core priority throughout in order to guide its deliberations and ensure it delivers consistent decisions to achieve this aim. The government should make clear that in its interpretation of the OfS’s general statutory duties that its primary role is indeed to further the interests of students.

16. Having a clear consumer-focused duty has proven to result in positive consumer outcomes in other sectors. A 2007 House of Lords inquiry into UK economic regulators found that a clear remit for economic regulators – including fewer duties and the clear identification of primary duty(ies) – brings benefits. It also concluded that in the rail sector, a lack of focus in the statutory duties of the Office for Road and Rail (ORR): “In taking its decisions, ORR has to reconcile a raft of statutory duties which do not have a hierarchy of priority and may pull in different directions.”

17. Competition should be a means to improve outcomes for students by driving

improvements in what higher education providers offer students. Although one of the OfS’s seven statutory duties covers competition, it states that this is “where that competition is in the interests of students and employers”. However, in order for the new regulator to deliver on its intended aim to further the interests of students, the Government must clarify that this is the primary aim of encouraging competition first and foremost. As previously stated, a confused duty in this respect could lead to perverse outcomes for students.

The OfS should have sufficient powers to effectively protect students 18. The Government should designate the OfS as an enforcer of consumer law

1Department for Education, Oct 2017: Securing student success: risk-based regulation for teaching excellence, social mobility and informed choice in higher education, p22

VAL0074

(under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002). Compliance with consumer law will be a requirement for any provider to be included on the OfS’s higher education register. However, unlike many other market regulators, the OfS will not have the powers to enforce consumer law, which will instead continue to sit with the Competition and Markets Authority.

19. In addition to the CMA’s powers, the OfS should have powers to enforce consumer law so that it is fully equipped to address sources of detriment for students. These enforcement powers would include giving the OfS the powers to apply to court for an enforcement order, requiring a provider to comply or to accept undertakings so that the provider will not continue or repeat the conduct. We welcome the Government’s consideration for the new regulator to take on enforcement responsibilities. It rightly states that “there is not an equal power balance in relationships between students and providers”2. Therefore it is critical that students have a strong regulator with sufficient powers to effectively protect them when providers treat students unfairly, or fail to deliver the academic experience they promised.

20. In recent years the higher education market has come under much scrutiny due to concerns that higher education providers were not fulfilling their obligations under consumer protection regulations. In 2015, a Which? investigation found wide-scale use of potentially unfair terms that allowed institutions to vary courses, and a number of cases where providers’ terms permitted them to prevent a student from graduating where they had outstanding non-tuition fee debt. Overall, we found that one in five providers (19%) used terms that we consider to be unlawful, and in contravention of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).

21. Our review of 50 university websites in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of providers failed to provide updated information about tuition fees on their website; 38 providers (76%) were breaching the law by failing to provide at least one piece of material information; and no provider was uniformly adopting good practice in relation to information provision across all categories of information.

22. Across the CMA’s three-year review which concluded in early 20173, higher education providers were found to be failing students through the use of unfair terms, and the information they provided to support student decision-making on institutions and courses. As a result, the CMA took enforcement action against a number of higher education providers by securing changes in student contracts and getting a fairer deal for students. However the regulator noted that the sector still had a need to improve in some areas of compliance, and raised concerns about the length of time it took providers to implement changes for the benefit of students.4

2 Department for Education, Oct 2017: Securing student success: risk-based regulation for teaching excellence, social mobility and informed choice in higher education, p35 3 Competition and Markets Authority, Consumer Protection Review of Higher Education, www.gov.uk/cma-cases/consumer-protection-review-of-higher-education 4 Competition and Markets Authority, July 2016, Consumer law compliance review: Higher Education undergraduate sector findings report, p4

VAL0074

23. Given these recent findings, we believe it is imperative that the new regulator be given enforcement powers so that problems can be tackled swiftly, and students are protected where there is evidence of providers’ unfair treatment and/or non-compliance with consumer law. Poor provider behaviour should not be allowed to become systemic problems before action is taken, and students should not be expected to take private actions in order to gain redress under consumer protection legislation. Due to its wider regulatory role, the OfS would likely be able to spot enforcement issues more quickly using its sector expertise and through regular monitoring than the current regime allows.

24. In addition, the Government should grant the OfS the power to accept super-complaints on behalf of students. Designated bodies should be able to bring major sources of student harm to the attention of the OfS and hold it to account for its response, including where they have identified breaches of consumer law.

25. Which? and other organisations have super-complaint powers in relation to a range of regulators, including the Competition and Markets Authority, the Office for Rail and Road and the Financial Conduct Authority. This enables public interest bodies to hold regulators to account and ensure that where there is evidence of consumer detriment that a regulator is not responding to, there is an effective route to ensure that it must investigate.

26. For example, in 2015 Which? issued a super-complaint to the Competition

and Markets Authority on pricing practices in grocery retailing. This prompted the CMA to investigate issues around misleading supermarket special offers and unclear unit pricing, which it had previously failed to prioritise. This led to enforcement action and the revision of guidance on pricing practices.

The OfS should develop “value for money” measures 27. The Government should make clear that the OfS is responsible for developing

a meaningful set of measures of value for money to help consumers when choosing which university to apply to.

28. Our research in 2014 found that three in 10 students thought that their academic experience was poor value, and a quarter of students said that higher education had not helped them to develop the skills needed for work. In order to address this issue, the availability of more information will not necessarily lead to better outcomes for students in their choice of subjects and providers. However, measures which could help prospective students to assess value for money could help them to make better choices, if tested properly with students. It could also help to ensure providers focus on the issues that matter most to students.

29. While the OfS is required to designate a body to compile information on

higher education providers, the regulator must have the right powers to reform the full range of existing measures of value for money. This should include measures such as the Teaching Excellence Framework and

VAL0074

Longitudinal Employment Outcomes data, as well as other information requirements such as the Key Information Set.

30. The OfS should work closely with government, providers and students to define the set of measures that would best enable students and parents to assess value for money. The recent Government consultation on the OfS’s regulatory framework states that providers should allow students to see how their money is spent. A set of measures such as this should be developed and tested to see how new interventions or offers from providers can best improve outcomes for students.

The OfS should be independent 31. It is crucial that the OfS can set its own priorities if it is to effectively deliver

on its primary aim, which should be to further the interests of students.

32. The OfS should determine how best to meet any strategic policy goals set by Government. In sectors such as water, energy and aviation, the Government issues strategic-direction statements or statutory social and environmental guidance that sets out its high-level policy goals. This approach would preserve the OfS’s independence, which would ensure that the Government fulfils its policy goals, while benefitting from the expertise of the regulator in determining how best to meet these aims.

The OfS should meaningfully engage with students 33. The OfS should set out a broad range of methods to directly engage with

students and to understand how best to improve outcomes for them. We welcome the announcement that the student representative on the board of the OfS will bring together a group of students via a panel. However, this should form part of a wide-ranging programme of meaningful student engagement which the OfS should lead, with students directly and with organisations that represent their interests. The OfS should set out a programme of research to understand the key areas of detriment for students and the best approaches to addressing them, including testing these with students.

October 2017

VAL0053

Written Evidence submitted from the Higher Education

Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Executive summary

1. There is strong evidence that higher education provides value for money for

students in terms of employment outcomes and income, and to the tax

payer through graduate contributions to the economy.

2. In 2016 87.3 per cent of graduates were in employment compared to 70.4

per cent of non-graduates. The high-skilled employment rate was 65.5 per

cent for graduates in 2016, compared to 22.0 per cent for non-graduates.

3. The salary premium for graduates has remained resilient in comparison with

non-graduates. Graduates earn a median of £9,500 p.a. more than non-

graduates.

4. Higher education participation rates for the most disadvantaged young

people increased from 16.7 per cent in 2005-06 to 24.3 per cent in 2014-

15.

5. However, significant gaps in participation remain. HEFCE is working to

address them through the National Collaborative Outreach Programme

(NCOP), which is based on a multifaceted approach and highly targeted,

data-driven activity.

6. HEFCE is responsible for ensuring that governance procedures are in place

to achieve value for money from public funds across teaching, research and

other activities in the interest of students.

7. In 2016 HEFCE launched a new risk-based approach to quality assessment

which refocuses intelligent regulation around the student interest and

provides assurances on the areas that matter to students such as degree

standards, student outcomes and the academic experience.

8. The Department for Education (DfE) introduced the Teaching Excellence

Framework (TEF) in 2016 to incentivise excellence in teaching and student

outcomes, and to help inform student choice. HEFCE is responsible for

implementing the TEF.

Introduction

9. HEFCE funds and regulates universities and colleges in England on behalf of

students and the public, promoting excellence and innovation in research,

teaching and knowledge exchange. More information about our work can be

found on our website.

VAL0053

10. Under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, HEFCE has

the power to set terms and conditions to the grants it makes. These

conditions are set out in our Memorandum of Assurance and Accountability

(MAA) which, among other things, requires the governing bodies of higher

education institutions to use public funds for proper purposes and to achieve

value for money across teaching, research and other activities in the

interest of students.

11. The MAA requires higher education institutions to report to HEFCE annually

on an economic value for money (VFM) measure (this measure is not

designed to measure the ‘value’ created through output effectiveness)

based on the opinions of institutional audit committees and internal

auditors. In 2017 HEFCE is collecting more systematic data on the

efficiencies achieved by institutions. This will capture how well institutions

use resources and the savings made through improvements to processes.

Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data

12. Work by HEFCE and others suggest that to understand properly the VFM HE

delivers, a broad range of indicators must be considered. Students consider

teaching quality to be the most important VFM factor, with the right mix of

teaching methods seen as more important than the number of contact

hours1. They also want clear and unambiguous information and advice

about their chosen programme of study and HE provider so that their

expectations (including relating to employment outcomes) are realistic and

can be met.

13. Surveys such as the student experience survey by the Higher Education

Policy Institute (HEPI) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA) provide

valuable insights into teaching quality and other issues that matter to

students, but have significantly smaller sample sizes by comparison with the

National Student Survey (NSS). In 2017 the NSS had a response rate of 68

per cent of all eligible finalists2. Overall satisfaction remains high: 84 per

cent of respondents, nearly a quarter of a million students, ‘mostly’ or

‘definitely’ agreed that they were satisfied with the quality of their course,

and 85 per cent reported positive responses to questions about teaching on

the course.

14. It is also important to understand the wider benefits that HE delivers, both

to individual graduates and to society. In 2013, the Department for

Business, Innovation and Skills brought together evidence from the UK and

1 ‘Student Academic Experience Survey 2017’, HEPI and HEA, 2017 and ‘What students

want from their university’, Universities UK, 2017. 2 This equates to 290,000 students from 530 UK HE providers including 87 alternative

provides whereas in 2017 14,057 students responded to the HEPI/HEA survey.

VAL0053

abroad to create a two-way taxonomy of the benefits of HE with

individual/society as one dimension and market/non-market (or wider)

benefits as the other3.

15. The report found that at the societal level HE participation was associated

with greater social cohesion, trust and tolerance, and greater political

stability, social mobility and social capital. At individual level, graduates had

a greater propensity to trust and tolerate others, and to vote, were more

likely to engage in preventative health care and had better life expectancy

and mental and general health.

16. Current sector-level data on graduate outcomes, primarily from the

Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE) and

Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data, indicates positive returns for

graduates in terms of employment and earnings. These, and the Labour

Force Survey, show high levels of graduate employment, with a high

proportion of graduates in high skill or professional jobs. In 2016 87.3 per

cent of graduates were in employment compared to 70.4 per cent of non-

graduates and the high-skilled employment rate was 65.5 per cent for

graduates, compared to 22.0 per cent for non-graduates. The salary

premium for graduates has remained resilient both in the context of

increases in the graduate workforce and in the years after the recession.

The median graduate salary in 2016 was £9,500 more than that for non-

graduates, up from £9,000 in 2010, while the premium for young graduates

(aged under 30) has stayed constant at £6,000.

17. Employment and salary outcomes are highly correlated with students’

background characteristics such as gender, ethnicity and socio-economic

status, and should be considered in this context. A key concern is that

students from more disadvantaged backgrounds both perceive and receive

poorer value for money than others.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged

students

18. Analysis by HEFCE and others demonstrates significant and persistent gaps

in HE qualification and progression outcomes for some groups. Students

from certain ethnic minority groups, from disadvantaged backgrounds or

with disabilities do not achieve the outcomes expected when accounting for

other factors. White graduates have significantly higher degree

classifications than graduates from other ethnicities. 76 per cent of white

graduates achieved a first or upper second class degree in 2013-14,

compared with 60 per cent of black and minority ethnic graduates. Similar

3 ‘The benefits of higher education participation for individuals and society: key findings

and reports ‘The Quadrants’, BIS, 2013.

VAL0053

disparities exist between students from the most disadvantaged and

advantaged areas 4.

19. These disparities also characterise post-graduation outcomes. Only 5.3 per

cent of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in 2013-14 went on to

post-graduate taught (PGT) study the following year, compared with 7.5 per

cent of students from the most advantaged backgrounds. Employment

outcomes were lower than expected for most graduates from ethnic

minority groups graduating in 2010-11, at both 6 months and 40 months

after graduation.

20. This presents a clear risk to progress on improving social mobility and

delivering social justice. Consequently, HEFCE targets its ‘student

opportunity’ and ‘student premium’ funding to help providers address these

issues.

21. Some of the factors which underlie these outcomes are beyond the control

of HE providers alone. As anchor institutions in their communities which

benefit from student and taxpayer investment, providers need to work in

partnership with employers and others to address them.

22. HE providers work with employers in many ways: through work placement

opportunities, professional mentoring for their students, recruitment events

and so on. A number have developed relationships with employers in

specific subject areas or industries to meet skill shortages. The challenge for

HE providers is to ensure that where such links exist, they are maximising

opportunities for the benefit of all of their students.

23. The HE sector has made significant progress in widening access to HE over

the last decade:

a. HE participation rates5 for the most educationally disadvantaged young

people increased from 16.7 per cent in 2005-06 to 24.3 per cent in 2014-

156. The number of degree entrants declaring a disability has also

increased, from just under 19,000 in 2004-05 to around 44,000 in 2015-16.

b. Non-continuation rates have reduced to around 7-8 per cent for full-time

degree entrants, despite increased numbers of students accessing HE.

4 Using POLAR which classifies local areas or ‘wards’ into five groups, based on the proportion of 18 year olds who enter HE aged 18 or 19 years old. These groups range from quintile 1 areas, with the lowest young participation (most disadvantaged), up to quintile 5 areas with the highest rates (most advantaged). 5 This uses the new POLAR4 classification. Source is ‘Young Participation: Trends in HE’ October

2017 HEFCE (to be published). 6 2014-15 represents the cohort who would be 18 at the start of academic year 2014-15. This represents the most recent cohort for which young participation is available as higher education entry at 18 or 19 needs to be captured.

VAL0053

24. Despite this progress, gaps in participation still remain. Access to the most

selective third of HE providers remains very unequal, with 41 per cent of

young people from the most advantaged backgrounds entering these

providers compared with 6.6 per cent from the most disadvantaged

backgrounds. Through access agreements and in other ways, HE providers

are seeking to improve attainment and aspiration in pupils from

disadvantaged backgrounds.

25. Higher education cannot be a positive force for social justice unless it works

with others to make a step change in addressing these gaps. This will

require a multifaceted approach that combines highly targeted and focused

outreach activity (such as the National Collaborative Outreach

Programme7), with broader-based outreach across a range of age groups,

from primary age children to adults in the community or workplace. It

crucially involves HE providers developing closer, more strategic

relationships with schools so that they can help to drive up attainment and

broaden expectations.

26. Further developments are in train. Degree apprenticeships are steadily

growing and have the potential to attract more diverse learners into a ‘learn

and earn’ route as an alternative to traditional campus-based degrees. With

support from a £10.5 million HEFCE development fund, 88 of the 130

HEFCE-funded HE institutions across England are now registered to offer

degree apprenticeships. 23 occupations are available as a degree

apprenticeship and more than 100 are in the pipeline. The first to market

are a close match for the most serious graduate skills gaps reported by

employers. Current figures show that a third of degree apprentices are 18

years old, a third are 19-24 and a third are over 24.

27. A place-based approach – universities working with local partners – is a key

dimension, both in terms of the targeting of outreach and collaboration with

employers, and for how courses respond to the needs of the local as well as

the national economy. Considering the skills the UK will need in the future,

there is clear evidence that demand for graduates and graduate skills is

buoyant. The structure of the labour market nationally has shifted towards

higher level skills. In 2016, 43 per cent of graduates were employed in

occupations that did not exist 50 years ago and by 2022, two million more

jobs will require higher-level skills. HE providers are already playing a

significant role in ensuring that skills needs are met at local and regional

levels.

28. Place also plays a critical role in the provision of part-time HE. Part-time

study opportunities are crucial for learners who choose not to enter HE

straight after school or college or who, later in their career, wish to update 7 NCOP is a highly targeted outreach programme aimed at boosting participation in areas where it is low overall and lower than expected given prior attainment levels.

VAL0053

their knowledge and skills, develop professionally or change jobs. However,

part-time students are generally less mobile than full-time students and so

local provision is important. Supporting HE providers to continue to provide

part-time study in the face of a 60 per cent decline in demand will be a

priority, particularly given the requirements of the Industrial Strategy.

29. HEFCE produces high quality, robust analysis which enables us to highlight

systemic issues and challenges and target activity and investment. For

example, the NCOP uses analysis showing patterns of participation across

England relating to pupil achievement at 16+. Our analysis of differences in

degree and progression outcomes, alongside more qualitative work, has

enhanced understand of the causes of such disparities to inform a Catalyst

funded programme addressing barriers to student success8.

30. Working with the other UK nations, HEFCE provides information to students,

prospective students and institutions through the NSS, Unistats, analysis of

DLHE outcomes, etc. This will in time be supplemented with additional

information delivered through a new Graduate Outcomes Survey.

31. We will also gain greater insights into the value HE adds through our

Learning Gain programme which aims to assess and validate methodologies

for measuring improvements in students’ knowledge, skills, work readiness

and personal development. It provides a view of ‘distance travelled’ during a

student’s time in higher education.

Senior management pay in universities

32. For more than 20 years, HEFCE has required the institutions it regulates to

disclose details of their vice-chancellors’ remuneration package in their

annual financial statements, together with information on the remuneration

of higher-paid staff and any severance compensation payments made to

them.

33. In June 2017 we published updated guidance on the remuneration of senior

staff and on severance pay. We will follow up after the next cycle of

university remuneration committee meetings has taken place to check

whether due regard has been given to the guidance.

34. Universities and colleges are autonomous institutions and also, as charities,

are legally obliged to be independent of government control. Neither HEFCE

nor the Charity Commission is legally empowered to set salary levels for

vice-chancellors or other senior executive staff or to require changes in

8 HEFCE’s Addressing barriers to student success programme funds 17 projects involving 64 HE

providers covering a broad range of areas including inclusive learning and teaching practices, well-being for students, progression to postgraduate study and graduate employability.

VAL0053

salaries for specific employees in specific institutions. A change in the law

would be needed for that.

35. However, we can and do investigate if the process of setting of those

salaries raises governance issues.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

36. HEFCE has a statutory duty to assess the quality of education in the

providers we fund. In 2016 HEFCE launched a new approach to quality

assessment – which includes an Annual Provider Review (APR) – designed

to be proportionate, risk-based and grounded in the context of an individual

provider and its students. It refocuses intelligent regulation around the

student interest and provides assurances on the areas that matter to

students such as degree standards, student outcomes and the academic

experience. The assessment of quality is now fully integrated with our

assessment of financial sustainability and good management and

governance of institutions.

37. The Department for Education introduced the TEF to identify and encourage

excellence in teaching and student outcomes above the baseline of the

Annual Provider Review and to help inform prospective students’ choice of

where to study.

38. The APR and the TEF have been designed to work together as elements of a

coherent system where each plays a distinct role: APR assesses providers

against baseline requirements, while the TEF seeks to differentiate and

reward performance beyond the baseline.

39. The inputs for APR and TEF include benchmarked indicators of student

satisfaction, continuation rates and graduate outcomes. These metrics tell

students a lot about the experience they are buying, including teaching and

learning, academic services and facilities, how likely they are to complete

their studies, and their likely employment prospects afterwards.

40. APR outcomes are published on the HEFCE Register of HE providers so

students can see the quality status of institutions. The Register shows

whether a provider fully meets HEFCE’s requirements for quality and

standards in that:

a. Qualification standards are reliable and reasonably comparable to those

across the UK.

b. The student academic experience is of high quality.

c. Student outcomes are generally good or excellent and the provider has

demonstrated continuous improvement in relation to them.

VAL0053

41. At the time of writing, 308 providers have received an APR outcome for

2016-17. 279 providers were judged to meet quality and standards

requirements. 29 providers (9 per cent) have an outcome of ‘meets

requirements with an action plan’. This tells students that the provider

meets HEFCE’s requirements for quality and standards, but is implementing

an action plan to improve in some areas.

42. Where a provider does not meet requirements it is placed under enhanced

scrutiny, with further more-detailed review visits, as well as an action plan

to address areas of immediate concern. It is ineligible for the TEF and is

likely to lose its Tier 4 sponsor licence to recruit international students.

43. HEFCE was commissioned to implement the first cycle of TEF assessment in

2016-17, with outcomes published in June 2017. A total of 295 universities,

colleges and alternative providers of higher education voluntarily took part.

Of these, 60 providers were rated gold, 115 were rated silver and 56 were

rated bronze. A further 64 received provisional awards where there was not

enough data for a full assessment. The TEF awards were published by

HEFCE as well as on the UCAS website, alongside other information, to help

inform prospective students’ choices.

44. The TEF awards were decided by an independent panel of experts including

academics, students and employer representatives. The assessment focused

on things that students themselves say they care about: high-quality,

engaged teaching and a supportive, stimulating learning environment which

equips them with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve their

potential, and then to progress to a good job or further study.

45. The panel drew on a combination of metrics and further written evidence

supplied by the participating providers. The metrics measure student

satisfaction, continuation, and progression to employment. The metrics take

account of differences in student characteristics, entry qualifications and

subjects studied, allowing the panel to judge teaching excellence and

outcomes for the specific students taught in each provider.

46. The government had introduced the TEF in 2016-17 as a trial year. It has

completed a lessons learned exercise and announced some refinements for

the next cycle of assessments in 2017-18. It has also commissioned HEFCE

to pilot the TEF at subject level, to produce ratings in future that

differentiate levels of excellence at subject-level, alongside a provider’s

rating, with the aim of further informing student choices.

47. HEFCE ceases to exist on 1 April 2018 and will be replaced by the Office of

Students as the regulator for higher education in England. There is a strong

focus in the regulatory framework consultation on VFM for students.

VAL0053

Further information

HEFCE will be pleased to provide any supplementary information or data which

the Education Committee may require as its work progresses.

October 2017