At Bristol we use the HEFCE methodology as it stands and we don't have
Media Studies.
The net effect seems to be to move us marginally down the contract range as
a whole, but there is a large number of factors involved in that. My
instinct is that we'd be severely outside the range if it wasn't for
mainstreaming of the Staff Development and Retention funds.
Whether we continue to model the new proposals (if implemented) is yet to
be decided. We probably will, at which point the internal effects will be
fun to explain and justify to those departments creditted with less income.
Our general response to the consultation is likely to be along the lines of
"Don't mess with the formula now, when it's all change in two years".
Best wishes
Paul
--On 17 October 2003 15:43 +0100 Nigel Phillips
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
> here at Bradford we do use the HEFCE bands, but sometimes allocate funds
> on a higher band to a particular subject if we feel that it is merited.
> we never take anyone down a band
> We don't like the new bandings - given the effect on a highly scientific
> university
> We don't have much media (less than 100 ftes), but what we have "feels"
> like Band C on the costs we have - small area so difficult to be sure.
>
>
> Nigel Phillips
>
>
>
> At 15:10 17/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>> How about a straw poll on:
>>
>> (a) how many institutions use the HEFCE price bands as a basis for
>> internal resource allocation?
>>
>> (b) how many feel that the new price bands reflect costs more accurately
>> than the old ones?
>>
>> (C) does *anyone* with Media Studies find that its costs are typical of
>> classroom-based subjects?
>>
>> Here at Sussex, we broadly follow the HEFCE model, except that we have
>> added extra price bands, one mid way between classroom and
>> semi-laboratory and another mid way between semi-laboratory and
>> laboratory.
>>
>>
>> Anthony Young
>> Director of Planning
>>
>> --On 17 October 2003 13:13 +0100 Mike Milne-Picken
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear concerned of Hull
>>>
>>> I would guess that what will happen is that they will use the new
>>> methodology for the first time in the March 04 Funding Letter to
>>> calculate assumed standard resource for 2004-05 from HESES03 and HESA
>>> 2002-03 (HEIFES03 and ILR 2002-03 F04 for us in FEIs). They do this
>>> every year (Table D), but will just use the new method. Your actual
>>> resource will be based on your previous allocation for 03-04, modified
>>> by the various adjustments for inflation and Additional Student Numbers
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> If you are outside the plus or minus 5% tolerance band then they will
>>> discuss that with you. Contrary to the scare stories in the THES
>>> yesterday, I wouldn't anticipate immediate reductions or increases in
>>> funding, as you will have up to three years to get back into the
>>> tolerance band and you can always do that by adjusting your student
>>> numbers (or their characteristics esp. price group proportions) in
>>> 04-05, to be monitored in HESES04. After that (March 2005), if you are
>>> still outside the tolerance band they will want to discuss it in more
>>> detail with you. I think I'm right in saying that after the 1997
>>> change, some institutions existed outside the tolerance band for several
>>> years without significant change in grant allocations. Since it is all
>>> likely to change again in 2006-07, this may be a storm in a tea-cup.
>>>
>>> Your HE advisor should be able to provide more info.
>>>
>>> On a more partisan note, the continued existence of nonsense like
>>> 'Minority Subjects' and the 'Premium for Old and Historic Buildings'
>>> drives a coach and horses through the notion of funding equality anyway.
>>> But at least I think the majority of changes they propose are moves in
>>> the right direction (but then I would say that, since we would be 20%
>>> underfunded anyway, but believe me, I do genuinely believe they are
>>> better than the status quo).
>>>
>>> Of course, if you use the HEFCE method in your internal resource
>>> allocations for your Faculties/Schools/Departments (income-led
>>> resourcing), then you've got a major job of work in the Spring to work
>>> out your new budgets for 04-05!
>>>
>>> Good luck to anyone who has to explain this to a Vice Chancellor or
>>> non-planner!! (or even a journalist)
>>>
>>> Mike (your friendly agony aunt)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anna Grey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: 17 October 2003 11:15
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Changes to HEFCE funding implementation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I think I've finally managed to work through the HEFCE funding
>>> changes and the implications of the various changes. (If anyone has any
>>> suggestions for really simple ways to explain the HEFCE funding model to
>>> non-planners, I'd be grateful!). I'm still not quite sure why this is
>>> being done at this time, given the way the block grant contract operates
>>> but that's life.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, given my assumption that there are likely to be some
>>> significant changes, has anyone worked out how this is going to be
>>> implemented, both by HEFCE and internally within their institution?
>>> Reading the document, the changes will be reported in the March funding
>>> letter, based I assume of the HESES data. But we are about to undertake
>>> a HESES return, based on the old funding methodology and we aren't
>>> returning anything about split Bands etc. Are HEFCE going to do the
>>> reassignment based on the HESA return we've just put in? Incidentally,
>>> has anyone else spotted the odd way that the Foundation Degree premium
>>> is assigned?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My concern is that the changes and implications are going to
>>> come through too late for them to be fed into our resource allocation
>>> methods and particularly fee assumptions. Anyone yet looked at how it
>>> will be dealt with internally? Yes I know it is a block grant that we
>>> can give it out how we like, but strangely some department heads don't
>>> see it that way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You may not wish to comment publicly over admin planning, so if
>>> you want to comment direct to me, feel free. I'll send a summary if any
>>> of the comments are repeatable!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna
>>>
>>> (concerned of Hull)
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Anna Grey
>>>
>>> Senior Planning Officer
>>>
>>> Planning and Quality Office
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> (01482) 466867
>>>
>>>
>
----------------------
PM Norris, Planning
[log in to unmask]
|