 |
 |
The system at Bradford is also module/load based.As in Birmingham, 10% of load is distributed to the home department to cover registration, course admin etc. A record is kept of teaching attributions for each module, updated annually in the autumn term, and contains % splits of modules jointly taught. Shortly after second semester registrations, load is calculated based on current year student numbers and modular load. Funding for the following year (based on Hefce grant, projected home and overseas fees, NHS contracts etc) is distributed in relation to the current year load. Part of the logic is that this year's student load per HESES produce next year's grant. Load for each full time student is rounded to 1 FTE. For flexible programmes, (eg CE), less rounding is possible so it is more important to get the record absolutely correct. This is a theoretical income distribution which can be varied through a plan-led budgeting system, for example to cope with rapidly expanding (or contracting) areas. Shared teaching between cognate areas can be a significant financial flow from one area to another, but few "GAMES" are played in practice. Resource flows with work, after all. With newer data systems more information is provided about numbersof students on modules etc to ensure that each School or department fully understand itsload pattern of "imports" and "exports". The system is complex, and that can be difficult to handle in itself, but its well established here and we haven't found a fairer or more accurate method. Its running costs are not too bad, because we tie it in to other systems on student records. The idea of an AUA session sounds fun, and I would be happy to be a joint presenter with someone from another uni. Nigel Phillips Senior Assistant Registrar 01274 233109 [log in to unmask] At 15:49 12/06/01 +0100, you wrote: >We resource via module where we have module information, and where a >programme isn't modular we resource by programme (and for PGRs we resource >the dept of the supervisor(s)). > >The pitfalls of this are when do you take your data. The 2nd second module >choices aren't fully onto our system until the end of February, so our >final load snapshot takes place early March. This is then used in the in >year financial forecast. Having just run a fresh snapshot last week, I can >see that on the whole the Schools that are a relatively normal have UG >loads of +- 5 FTEs (this equates to +- 0.5 to 1%). The greatest >discrepancies occur in areas where there is less normal provision and >courses starting at non-standard times. We haven't been able to solve this >one yet. (But we are reviewing our RAM, and one way to do it may be to do >a best quality calculation at the end of year, rather than a good quality >calculation in year. This runs into the problem of using data out of cycle >to the financial year, but we accept this from HEFCE.) > >To reward/resource recruitment and administration the Home dept(s) retain >10% of the student load. This is also done as an incentive to prevent load >hoarding. Our underlying resource principal is to resource activity. >Therefore the quickest way to increase your activity is to prevent >students from taking modules from outside of your discipline. (This >problem is not present in a resource by programme model). We therefore >have policy that insists on yr 1 students on taking modules outside of >their main discipline (except in Schools where there are accreditation or >other academic reasons). >I think this problem can be handled via academic policy, or through >resource policy (and using a formula that somehow negates this). But if >you have a "fully" transparent model and methodology, short-termism rules >and the natural game to play is to hoard. > >As stated elsewhere there are data quality/quantity concerns. We are able >to record the nominal teaching dept (those who organise the teaching), the >lecturing dept (those who deliver), and the FTE dept (those who actually >get the cash). And we do record responsibility splits for modules that are >taught by more than 1 dept. > >In the past we carried out a less than logical calculation of the FTE. The >denominator for each student was the sum of all their registered credits, >and the numerator for each module was the credit value for the module. >Therefore an FT student always had a total FTE of 1. But if they were only >registered on 100 credits then a 10 credit module received 1/10, rather >1/12 FTE. This year we moved to the much better method of fixing the >denominators at 120 and 180 for UG and PG respectively. > >Does anyone think there is a session that could be made out of this for >AUA conference? Possibly along the lines of role/game playing? > >Dave > >On 12 Jun 01, at 14:19, A.M.Grey wrote: > >> Dear all,the university is currently reviewing the way in which >> HEFCE income is distributed to departments. The current >> proposal is to move to a system where money follows >> students, that is departments get money on based on the >> number of students on modules, rather than programmes. >> Does any one have any words of wisdom that they like to >> share with me, before we start? In particular are there >> any pitfalls we should be aware of? Also if you currently >> running a modular based system and have chosen to abandon >> it, could you say why? >> >> It makes sense logically and provided the student data is >> accurate should be relatively straight forward, but I just >> have a feeling that I'm missing something really obvious. >> I realise that we do need to make some policy decision >> first, such as do we give the 'home' department an >> allowance for the work involved in recruitment/student >> support and also when should the extract of data be taken. >> But anything else I've missed? >> >> Many thanks in anticipation. >> >> Anna >> >> ---------------------- >> A.M.Grey >> Assistant Registrar (Planning) >> Planning and Quality Office >> (Tel)01482 466867 >> (e-mail) [log in to unmask] >> >> **Please note change of address** > > >-- >Dr Dave Radcliffe >Planning Officer >Planning & Policy Development >Academic Office >Tel: 0121 414 3753 >Web: http://www.ao.bham.ac.uk/plan/ >