I totally agree with everything Dave has said; the whole system is
iniquitous. However, your institution can challenge the HEFCE figures if
you have appropriate evidence, as we did last year, successfully.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Laycock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 April 2002 11:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: next year's disability funding
If you have the spreadsheet for next year and have scanned
through all of our awards you must have noticed that while some
remain fairly stable, lots of HEIs have suffered swings of 20% to
30%. Fine if you are going up, but not if you are coming down. In
the first three years our University awards have been £44k, £135k
and £91k.
No doubt those who appear to have done well this year will be
feeling pleased with themselves, but will they feel the same if next
year their income is halved and they are committed to some
ambitious ideas?
Planning embedding exercises or simply planning full stop,
becomes difficult when your means are so unstable. Having spoken
to our University number cruncher it seems that the funding is still
based on DSA applications among new entrants; the least stable
figure possible given the number of second and third year DSA
applications we receive as an Access Centre from universities all
over the region. These late applicants would never register. This
figure is then pushed through a quartile exercise which induces
even greater instability. The result? A planning nightmare based on
rules that are bound to keep it that way.
Dave Laycock
Head of CCPD
Chair of NADO
Computer Centre for People with Disabilities
University of Westminster
72 Great Portland Street
London W1N 5AL
tel. 020 7911-5161
fax. 020 7911-5162
WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/
|