Skip to main content

TEFS Submission to DfE post-18 education review





TEFS Submission to DfE post-18 education review
LINK TO THE FULL SUBMISSION

Priorities for a fairer system.
The current Department of Education review appears to address policy relating to England only since education is devolved in the other UK jurisdictions. However the priorities and case presented here applies equally to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There are TWO priorities highlighted in this submission. They are proposed as the foundation upon which any policy change is made and how its effectiveness is assessed. They are related to the fairness of the post-18 education provision and the independence of the data that underpins the assessment of fairness and any cost-benefit analysis arising. In making change it is also essential that the policies are planned in the longer-term so that students and their families can plan effectively well into the future.
1. That equality of opportunity for all students in their studies is always ensured and that this principle is the foundation for ALL decisions made regarding access, financing and delivery of courses. This impacts fair access, support whilst a student is studying and equitable value for money related to any financial burden and/or debt incurred. One suggestion is that the resource of study time is placed top of the list of resources that should be equalised for all students. With this principle at the base all other factors can be adjusted accordingly. 

2. That the data gathering that underpins policy decisions and associated cost- benefit analysis is designed to effectively assess equality of opportunity for students. This should be reviewed as part of a process of ensuring effectiveness of policies and associated cost-benefit analysis.  It should be conducted completely independently of the institutions concerned
Recommendations:
Before designing any funding system it must start with consideration of the individual student and work from that point.  Three principles in seeking a fair and equal education of high quality might be:
1.    Every university provides defined, rigorous and testing degree programmes that offer access to the full expertise of the most experienced staff. This would to some extent reverse the expansion of short-term contract staff that have supported the expansion in student numbers in favour expanding of long-term experienced staff.
2.    Every student has the same access to time and resources to carry out their studies regardless of background. In making policy, the particular emphasis should be on ensuring that every student has the same time available for their studies. This would be the basis for assessing value for the money invested by the student, their families and the tax payer.
3.    The data that supports the policies should relate to the individual student. That data should be gathered by a body that is free from commercial influences and also entirely independent of the institutions it is observing.
To achieve these goals, it will be necessary to create a means tested funding system. This would be composed of two elements that ensure an equitable balance between contributions from the tax payer and from the students and families.

1)    Universities would receive from fees and government a flat rate of funding per student related to the amount of resource they devote to teaching in each area. This may vary according to the cost of the subject and the projected need for students in areas of shortage. Fees and loans would be means tested with the most disadvantaged students not paying fees. In effect these would be partly subsidised by the tax payer.


2)    All students would be expected to devote the same amount of time to their degree studies.  Each individual student would generate a study plan that demonstrated this was possible and the expectation would be that more rigorous standards were imposed by the institutions in return. A mixture of grants that were means tested and loans would be available to ensure that this was possible in all cases.

This would move closer to the ideals of Robins 1963 who noted that: “Courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.”

LINK TO THE FULL SUBMISSION
HERE AND AT https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/05/02/tefs-submission-2nd-may-2018/
Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years  teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Constructive comments please.
Did you have a free Higher Education?

Popular posts from this blog

Ofqual holding back information

Ofqual has responded to an FOI request from TEFS this week. They held a staggering twenty-nine board meetings since March. Despite promising the Parliamentary Education Committee over a month ago they would publish the minutes “shortly” after their meeting on 16th September, they are still not able to do so. They cite “exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future” for minutes that are in the “process of being approved for publication” . More concerning is they are also citing exemption under the “Public Interest Test”. This means they might not be published, and Ofqual will open themselves up to legal challenges. If both the Department for Education and Ofqual are prevented from being more open, then public interest will lie shattered on the floor and lessons will not be learned.  Ofqual finally responded to the TEFS Freedom of Information (FOI) request to publish the minutes of its board meetings on Tuesday. It should have been replied to by 17th Sept...
1 comment
Read more

Higher Education and the ‘intelligent plumbers’ theory

A common tactic when found out is to divert attention elsewhere. The release of student data from 2018/19 by the Department for Education (DfE) yesterday, ‘Widening participation in higher education: 2020’ and ‘Statistics: further education and skills’ tells the same sorry tale of a wide gap in access to universities between the most and least advantaged students. To divert attention from these stark facts in advance, the government used a diversionary tactic by attacking the effectiveness of universities and thus pointing the blame for poor social mobility someplace else. Advocating improvements in further education, something cut back by the same regime for years, hides the real intention. It seems that class divisions will be further exacerbated and any concession to universities fuelling improved social mobility has been abandoned. But the flawed theory is that at least the elite rulers will get access to intelligent plumbers . Three years ago, I heard a leading ‘You...
4 comments
Read more

Students working in term-time: Commuter students and their working patterns

This article and analysis shows that commuter students are more likely to be employed in term time and also more likely to work longer hours. Two recent studies of commuter students ( one a quantitative and the other a qualitative analysis ) attending six universities in the London area revealed that commuter students were at a disadvantage in terms of outcome when compared to their peers. There is an urgent need for institutions to consider the actual time that their students have to study as the main measure. This is a way to integrate the time pressures of other activities such as commuting and employment that all add up to less time for studying. The general conclusion of the two studies was that “travel time remained a significant predictor of student progression or continuation for UK-domiciled full time undergraduates at three of the six London institutions”. This is perhaps not surprising for someone who spends much of the day travelling and the recommendation is that ...
2 comments
Read more