Our figures were very similar to those indicated below and the N. of A.
letters caused us no end of confusion, frustration and plain old extra work.
It would be wonderful to get some measure of (rational) standardisation.
 ----------
From: TONY SILVESTER
To: admin-student; admin-ucas; arg-members; R.M.G.Clark
Subject: This term's registration and student su
Date: 21 October 1998 13:42

Roger,

1)  from a regional meeting recently attended it would appear that, in
relation
to the percentage of LEA Notification of Award letters submitted, the
figures
are consistent with those so far reported to you.
our experience seems fairly typical: we commenced on 21 sept and approx 50%
of
new students had letters with them. (this after a massive effort to
encourage
students to bring them along).
in the intervening 4 weeks we have since been able to match LEA N of A
letters
to approx 85% of new students.
institutions commencing after ourselves seem to have had a proportionally
better return rate.
the activity of matching LEA N of A letters, submitted after enrolment, to
student enrolment details, has proved to be a time-consuming and intensive
exercise -as expected.

2)  I believe we can all identify the LEAs who have been poor performers,
though I am sure we would not want to name names, as we accept that we have
all
had to face these difficult times together!

3)   quite a few LEA N of A letters are confusing to say the least
 -especially
to staff who are not constantly exposed to them.
 we should be striving for a 'perfect' model, and asking the LEAs to strive
to
achieve it. they will need as much lead-in time as possible if they are to
amend their various computer programmes in time for 1999/2000.
(whether they are informing us or the Student Loans Company next year).

4)   a number of LEAs have set the contribution first against grant rather
than
fees. how are institutions to react?
our view is that we will do what the LEA letter says, even though we know it
is
wrong. then perhaps the LEA can be 'forced' to process any necessary
amendments.
however, should there be a sector-wide response?

5)   it would be interesting to know how colleges accounted for the
additional
amount within the HEFCE budget allocations, which was specifically given to
help deal with the new arrangements.
did any institution actually devolve all or part of the budget to admin or
finance sections to allow those most affected to plan and action events and
activities over and above the norm.
or did most simply keep it against a central, institutional overhead -and
allow
relevant departments to overspend their normal budget, within limits
presumably?

6)   we suspect that many institutions, like ourselves, have pondered the
dilemma regarding when to invoice new students.
the longer we hold-off, the less amendments we will subsequently have to
make
(a considerable saving in staff time). however, the institutions cash flow
position may be adversely affected.

7)    the lack of a sector-wide regulation or agreement on how to deal with
students who wish to transfer to another college will soon be causing
problems
and possible adverse publicity.
we know how the LEA contribution will be allocated to just one institution,
but
how should the 2 relevant institutions share the student/parent/spouse
contribution.
do we really want to follow the crude LEA contribution model. an institution
losing a student on the 30 November will receive no re-imbursement at all
for
all the admissions and enrolment work as well as two months tuition.
if we all set our own rules regarding how much of the student contribution
we
wish to keep, and that does not match with the receiving institution's
request
for all or a greater part of the contribution, then the student will be
facing
a bill for more than their LEA-assessed contribution.
we are aware, of course, that the net effect of transfers in and out is
negligible to many colleges, and that this could suggest that we might use
the
LEA model (ie wherever s/he is on 1st dec gets the contribution).
some colleges will no doubt disagree, claiming that they would be
significant
net losers.

8)   what are we doing with regard to liaising with the SLC next year.
we are aware that planning is ongoing at the higher levels; but it would be
nice to think that staff who deal with issues at an operational level could
give an input to, for example, the design of forms -something which I
personally think is a problem the SLC need to address.
and what about IT developments?

apologies regarding the length of this message. I thought I'd better be
thorough!!

good luck.

T.Silvester
Admin Co-ordinator
Non-academic Student Administration
University of Derby
(01332) 622222 x 1879

 ------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk by missgate.sunderland.ac.uk
  (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9h for Windows NT(tm))
  id AA-1998Oct21.133436.1814.1539775; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:34:37 +0100
Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk (naga.mailbase.ac.uk [128.240.226.3])
 by mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21904;
 Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:32:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
        by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) id NAA26346;
        Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:32:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail1.derby.ac.uk (mail1.derby.ac.uk [195.194.177.11])
        by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with ESMTP id NAA26328;
        Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:32:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from csv6.derby.ac.uk (csv6.derby.ac.uk [193.60.145.14]) by
mail1.derby.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA13783.; Wed, 21 Oct 1998
13:35:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from staff-Message_Server by csv6.derby.ac.uk
 with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:58 +0100
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:28:43 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by naga.mailbase.ac.uk
id
NAA26328
Subject: This term's registration and student support -Reply
From: "TONY SILVESTER" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>,
        <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
X-List: [log in to unmask]
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave arg-members' to [log in to unmask]
X-List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "TONY SILVESTER" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Errors-To: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%