Exempt annex: policy in development
Strategic Committee
reports
B109/08e
Agenda item 17
17 December 2008
Issue
1.
Two reports from strategic committees are attached.
Recommendation
The Board is invited to receive the reports
Timing for decisions
Committees report back to the board on the outcomes of their meetings as soon as
possible.
Further information
Simon Cannell on 0117 931 7405
Report from the Widening Access and Participation Strategic Advisory Committee
1.
The Committee met on 4 December 2008 and provided advice on a number of
issues.
The relationship between the role of higher education sector and changes in social
mobility
2.
The Committee was presented with a paper which outlined the findings of the
recent Cabinet Office publication, ‘Getting on, getting ahead – A discussion paper
analysing the trends and drivers of social mobility’. The paper noted the trends in higher
education participation in relation to social class and asked the Committee to consider
what more, if anything, could be done by the higher education sector to contribute to
improvements in social mobility.
3.
The Committee expressed the view that the approach taken in the paper reflected
a particular sociological position which took as its main point of reference for measuring
progress in social mobility occupational structures. The Committee suggested that such
an approach was open to challenge in view of the changing and contested definition of
what constitutes a ‘graduate’ job. This was felt to be particularly problematic in the current
climate with the economy entering a period of recession. The Committee made the
following observations:







The economists’ approach to social mobility would more strongly emphasise the
role and importance of education in social mobility.
There are concerns regarding the data currently available in terms of social
mobility and a suggestion was made that discussion be held now about the kind
of data needed over the next 15 years and that work should be undertaken to put
methods in place to collect such data.
The Committee suggested that it would be beneficial to disaggregate data in
terms of relative mobility for ethnic groups and gender in HE, etc.
There was agreement that a better understanding was needed of the situation in
regard to the apparent decline in participation of the higher socio-economic
groups as well as a more sophisticated understanding of the position of young
men in education.
The role of non-prescribed HE was raised as one way in which HE could increase
the status and value of different occupational qualifications. However, it was also
noted that certain professional associations might be opposed to recognition of
this type if it impacted on the relative status of professions higher in the hierarchy.
It was suggested that the political interest in social mobility could provide an
opportunity to place WP at the core of sector activity. However, a note of caution
was given in terms of managing expectations of what HE could reasonably be
expected to deliver.
There was some debate about the nature of the type of education that HE
provides. It was suggested that an HE education was as much about increasing
cultural mobility as it was about social mobility. However, it was agreed that,
2


whilst it was true that an HE education delivers more than simply the skills
necessary to do a job, it would not necessarily make sense to try and de-couple
the motivation for undertaking HE study from economic drivers.
A distinction was made between inter-generational and intra-generational mobility
and that there was a need for a focus on the latter in terms of lifelong
learning/adult learners and the high level skills agenda.
The committee also felt that more attention needed to be given to the
opportunities for engagement in post-graduate study and research.
4.
In conclusion, the committee suggested that participation needed to be measured
across the full range of HE provision – undergraduate, post-graduate, part-time, short
course, etc. It maintained that although improving social mobility is not the core role of
HE, it has very strong consequences for it and that its responsibility was to identify
potential wherever it might be located. It was acknowledged that the HE sector is diverse
and that different institutions would have different contributions to make. The committee
stressed the need to articulate much more clearly why widening participation makes
sense economically, socially and culturally and to communicate this to a broader
audience.
Request for widening participation strategic assessments: guidance to institutions
5.
The committee was presented with a draft circular representing a formal request
from both HEFCE and OFFA to higher education institutions and those further education
colleges directly funded by HEFCE for the submission of widening participation strategic
assessments. The circular outlined the framework for a flexible form of reporting that
recognised the diversity of the HE sector and provided guidance that set out the
expectations of both HEFCE and OFFA.
6.
The committee made the following observations:


There were some concerns regarding the requirement for institutions to provide
information on their spend on WP activity. It was suggested that this might result
in ‘game playing’ by institutions. There was also a concern that there would be no
comparability across institutions as they would all cost their activity differently and
would not necessarily report against the same type of activity. It was further
suggested that the cost of an activity would not necessarily reflect its
effectiveness and that some interventions could be undertaken at a very low cost
but be highly valuable. It was recognised, however, that the political and public
concerns regarding value for money issues in relation to the investment in WP
meant that information on the way in which such funding is used would need to
be a necessary part of the strategic assessments.
Concerns were raised regarding the timescales and it was recognised that the
delayed publication of the guidance meant that the timescales would need to be
revised. In terms of the requirement to report in December 2009, it was
suggested that institutions might have difficulty in securing the data necessary.
3

However, it was further acknowledged that the first report in December 2009
would be an interim report.
It was suggested that the guidance should provide greater clarity on the need for
institutions to demonstrate how WP is embedded in the mission, management
and culture. It was further acknowledged that greater clarity should be provided
on how HEFCE and OFFA would follow-up on the strategic assessments once
submitted.
Links between HEIs, schools, colleges and academies
7.
The committee was presented with a draft circular inviting proposals from HEIs to
research, develop and evaluate institutional practice relating to links between HEIS,
schools, colleges and academies.
8.
The committee made the following observations:




Paper suggests a one-to-one model but HEIs do not necessarily work this way
with schools. They will often work with a cluster or network of schools embedded
within communities.
The committee questioned whether Aimhigher would provide a more appropriate
focus for this activity as the partnerships already have established relationships
with schools in their areas. The Committee heard that a deliberate decision had
been made to aim this activity at HEIs to ensure the long term sustainability of the
links.
It was suggested that the focus on schools would fail to recognise the crucial role
that FECs play in progression to HE and the importance of effective links
between HEIs and colleges. In addition, the decision not to allow FECs to submit
a bid in their own right to the programme was questioned as there did not appear
to be clear rationale for it.
It was suggested that HEFCE could not be expected to deliver against all of the
recommendations of the NCEE and that the programme represents an
appropriate first response to the recommendations for HE. It was further
suggested that HE could have a significant role to play in the provision of high
quality, appropriate information, advice and guidance.
The future of higher education: DIUS nine reviews
9.
The committee was presented with a paper that provided a summary of the nine
reports commissioned by the Secretary of State in February 2008 to inform the
development of a policy framework for higher education for the next fifteen years.
10. The committee was advised that the paper represented a very surface analysis of
the reports and that a more in-depth analysis of the implications for widening participation
policy would be brought to a subsequent meeting of the committee.
4
11. It was noted that one of the key issues identified in a number of the reports was
that of part time students and the need for a more equitable funding systems for such
students.
Future support for widening participation and teaching enhancement: responses to the
consultation
12. The committee was presented with a paper that briefly discussed the responses to
the HEFCE consultation on future support for widening participation and teaching
enhancement. The consultation proposed changes to the funding for widening access,
improving retention, and for some areas currently funded through the Teaching Quality
Enhancement Fund.
13. It was noted that the responses to the consultation had agreed with the proposals
in general but that significant concerns had been raised over the decision to take
£30 million out of the improving retention allocation. In addition, concerns were
expressed at the potential signal that might be sent out as a result of the de-coupling of
improving retention from widening access. Further concerns were expressed concerning
the proposal to change the formula for the widening access to double the weighting given
to the lowest quintile.
14. The committee advised that any changes to the allocations should: be made
according to a clear rationale and be based on a sound evidence base; not create
distortions; and support widening participation.
15. The committee agreed that of the three options given in the paper, option B should
be recommended. The options presented were:
a. We proceed as outlined in the consultation document, while ensuring that we are
able to present strong arguments to defend our position.
b. We retract our proposal to change the quintile weightings for the Widening
Access allocation, thus reducing to a certain extent redistribution of funding
between institutions. We have been asked by the government to increase funding
for widening access and more intensive work with schools is a priority, so we do
not believe that we can avoid transferring £30 million from the improving retention
allocation to the widening access allocation.
c. We could include a formula for staff and student volunteering. This would add a
fourth element to the TESS targeted allocation and reduce the funding for LTA
strategies and RIT. Early modelling suggests that this would tend to shift funding
from post-92 institutions towards research-intensive institutions.
Jackie Fisher
Chair
Widening Access and Participation Strategic Advisory Committee
5
Report from the Strategic Advisory Committee for Research
Held on Thursday 27 November 2008, HEFCE, Woburn House, London.
Reflections on the strategic discussion at the Strategic Committees conference
1.
The Chair summarised discussion at the conference, held in October 2008, with
particular reference to research and innovation matters. The committee noted that there
had been comparatively little discussion of research policy issues on the first day of the
conference; they felt that more needed to be said in continuing debate about the
connection between research and the broader development of higher education.
2.
The Chair shared with the committee a letter he had received from the Chief
Executive asking the committee to prepare a commentary on long term developments
which HEFCE will need to take into account in developing its next five year strategy. The
committee noted that it does not have another meeting programmed before the deadline
for responses; agreed that the Chair should respond on its behalf; and as a first stage
towards that, asked the Secretariat to co-ordinate inputs from members by email as soon
as some further documentation mentioned in the letter was available.
Chairman’s report on the management of IP by Universities: implications for future
HEFCE strategy
3.
The chairman summarised some key points in his recent report to the Secretary of
State. The committee discussed in particular:
a.
The recommendation that HEFCE and RCUK should give further
consideration to the graduate school experience: they noted that there is not
general agreement as to what form a graduate school might take, and agreed that
they should discuss this whole issue in more depth within the coming year.
b.
Technology transfer offices: they noted that the “hub and spoke” model could
lead to some difficult working relationships.
c.
Management of IP: they agreed that this is moving in the right direction in the
UK and our present arrangements compare well internationally. They saw a need
for further discussion as to whether HEIs were now sufficiently entrepreneurial in
their approach to this issue.
The dual support system
[Exempt from publication]
6
User valued research in the REF
4.
The committee noted a report on main points in the discussion at this workshop
meeting held in October 2008. They agreed that it will be desirable to involve research
users in designing as well as operating REF assessment processes; and stressed that
the definition of “user” must be broad enough to capture the full range of those who use
research outcomes. They endorsed proposals for securing suitable input from expert
panels in all disciplines.
HEFCE third stream funding
5.
The committee noted a draft summary of the preliminary findings of a recent
external evaluation of HEFCE third stream funding.
Publication of RAE results
6.
The committee noted the arrangements being made for publication of the
outcomes of RAE 2008, and the timetable for Board discussion of using these in funding
from 2009-10.
Any other business
12.
The committee noted the publication of a HEFCE brochure on how the HE sector
can help business through the economic downturn.
7