 |
 |
Thanks Eddie, Thanks for your support, but maybe I can throw down the gauntlet and ask others to explain why they disagree with me and agree with HEFCE on the Student Number Control and institutional transfer? I'd like to hear what they think, because silence is assent by default, and anyway I don't pretend to have all the answers! My feeling is that the big WP institutions don't really care about this, even though as someone who worked in them for 20 years I would say they should because a principle is at stake. Pragmatically though, it gives them an encouragement for bringing their Foundation Degree provision under 'franchise' arrangements and reduces the advantages of direct funding for smaller HEIs and FECs that can offer a niche but not the whole offer, ie it reduces competition and encourages conglomeration and monopoly. The Russell Group in the main wouldn't admit a foundation degree student (typically with low or no A levels) into the third year of a degree anyway, so they aren't bothered either. So it is down to a few voices of dissent in smaller institutions or with a lifelong learning philosophy, like me, to keep banging the drum. My concern is twofold: 1) if it's really about reducing the burden on the taxpayers, then it's perverse and illogical, as a student progressing from seperate courses between institutions creates the same burden on the tax payer as a student who progresses within the institution (including sub-contracted/franchise students in partner colleges registered with the top up institution). The whole idea of Lifelong Learning Networks was to create the opportunity for people to progress without barriers, and was supposed to be the reason for pumping HEFCE £millions into them over the last and next few years. It's the Grand Old Duke of York strategy of marching people up to the top of the hill and back down again. Since full time FD progression to top up goes through UCAS anyway (though this is widely flouted because institutions fear competition), there are alternative control mechanism that would at least equalise the difference between 'progression between' and 'progression within' institutions. But the wider picture is that the 'FD to topup' also needs to compete on a level playing field with the 'straight to bachelors' option, otherwise it will join the graveyard of failed initiatives. 2) Someone needs to stick up for the student! They should go where it's best for them to go and not be caught up in bureaucratic obstructions and perverse outcomes of the funding system. Even in a period where the main issue is the size of the pot, we should not lose sight of the fact that we should be fair to all the students. The original idea for the two year degree came from the Robertson report Choosing to Change back in 1994, but the whole underpinning philosophy in that report and at the time was a more student oriented flexible system of HE. If we accept the current arrangements we are heading back to the 'universities know best' philosophy that blocked the development of a mass higher education system for decades. Hopefully I will have shamed a few people into adding their voices, but to be quite frank I cannot see many vice chancellors banging the table with HEFCE about this one when there are much bigger issues at stake; which is a shame because I think we should judge any system (or society) by how it looks after the little people who don't have the greatest voice. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I become any more than a lone voice. Regards Mike Milne-Picken Academic Registrar Royal Northern College of Music 124 Oxford Road Manchester M13 9RD T (44) 0161 907 5331 F (44) 0161 273 8188 E [log in to unmask]<blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.rncm.ac.uk ________________________________ From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Lazell Sent: 17 June 2010 17:07 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux Mike Your point about the Student Number Control was quite right. I thought it wasn't really an adequate response from HEFCE at the event to say "it's up to institutions to behave responsibly" by disadvantaging themselves. HEFCE policies are all about incentivising and disincentivising the sector to meet policy objectives, and the current student number control policy clearly disincentivises institutions from admitting Year 3 entry former foundation top-up students. I hope you stay on the hobby horse as this is an area where HEFCE could usefully look at exemptions or counter-incentives. Eddie ________________________________ From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Milne-Picken Sent: 17 June 2010 16:59 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux At the HEFCE seminar in London on Tuesday it was confirmed that we will have to go through 2009-10 students to see if they meet the 2010-11 non completion definition, and then use that data, not the actual data submitted to HESA, as our model for the 2010-11 return. HEFCE confirmed that for this reason they will not be making available software to look at non-completion data on the 2009-10 return. However I was wrong in my assumption that we just had to go through the 2009-10 non-completers and decide whether they would have been completers under the 2010-11 rules. There are some students who will have been completers under the 2009-10 rules but will become non-completers in 2010-11. This is because of the impact of the '13-month' rule. Any deferred assessment into the next academic year currently counts as completer as and when the student (eventually) takes the reassessment including the next available opportunity which might be late in the year. Under the new rules this MUST be within 13 months of the start date of the instance. I described this as 'swings and roundabouts'. We are all expecting to gain massively on the 'swings' because a lot of student who (often wilfully) do not submit know they have the opportunity for reassessment and take that in August/September. These will now become completers and this is a great advantage that will not produce extra money (zero sum game) but will make the situation more defendable and rational, and easier to track. But the 'roundabouts' that we will lose on include students whose assessment is maybe deferred twice until after 13 months. or whose reassessment opportunity is say at the end of october (eg postgraduates who often submit final dissertation, or in our case final year students performance recitals). The other point that was made is that the 13 months is from the start of the year of student instance, not the start of the module. So in a more flexible (eg trimesterised degree) arrangement, a student who starts the year in September may not start a module until April, or even June for courses that have 'summer schools/semesters', but then has to submit for assessment by October and clearly has less opportunity to complete the assessment process by the end of the 13 month period that modules starting at the beginning of the instance. There was some discussion on non-standard years and students who switch from standard to non-standard. So, my conclusion is that I'm about to start going through all exam board data to check module result data on both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 rules but obviously we have to do this again in September after resit boards and before the final HESA close date. Others who were there can no doubt chip in their thoughts on this issue. Student Number Control is an entirely different theme and I'll leave someone else to start that ball rolling, otherwise I'll get on my hobby horse about it being perverse to dampen inter institutional transfer after pumping £millions into LLNs and ASNs! Regards Mike Milne-Picken Academic Registrar Royal Northern College of Music 124 Oxford Road Manchester M13 9RD T (44) 0161 907 5331 F (44) 0161 273 8188 E [log in to unmask]<blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.rncm.ac.uk ________________________________ From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lashley, Raymond K Sent: 10 June 2010 09:26 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux A step in the right direction, but there will always be holes. That's the nature of having a diverse sector. Still, I think the holes are smaller and fewer. As for the estimations, our resit period, and I suspect many institutions, is over in time for the submission of the HESA so anyone who hasn't sat by then won't have a chance within the 13 months. What I think we can do, if my colleagues who compile the HESA agree, is calculate both definitions as part of this years HESA cycle (obviously, making sure we only return the current one!). That should help not only HESES10, but the quality of the HESA too. Something to discuss in the breaks at the seminars. Ray Ray Lashley Senior Planning Officer University of Essex http://www.essex.ac.uk/planning/contacts From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Milne-Picken Sent: 10 June 2010 09:09 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux Hi folks People in Scottish and Welsh institutions can switch off and have a good laugh at how complicated the English always make things ... I've been reading the latest missive from HEFCE about HESES/HEIFES and particularly the change in definition of non-completion for 2010-1, in advance of next Tuesdays seminar (and 28th). This is no doubt a move in the right direction and away from the previous 'Cambridge Conundrum'* (though I cannot help thinking that we now have something with more holes in it than a piece of gorgonzola and a more fundamental reappraisal might be in order). However, the very final paragraph about estimation means I think that we will have to go back over our 2009-10 HESA/ILR return, say in October after reassessment and the '13 month anniversary' has passed, identify everyone who met the 2009-10 definition of non-completer and calculate whether, hypothetically, they would have met the 2010-11 definition to an auditable standard and flag them in some way. We then need to use for HESES10/HEIFES10, not the actual figures we returned in HESA/ILR but the recalculated non-completion rate based on our revised analysis of 2009-10 assessment using 2010-11 rules. This seems like a lot of work but I cannot see an alternative if we are to take advantage of the more generous interpretation of non-completion. Anyone else had similar thoughts? Mike Milne-Picken Academic Registrar Royal Northern College of Music 124 Oxford Road Manchester M13 9RD T (44) 0161 907 5331 F (44) 0161 273 8188 E [log in to unmask]<blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.rncm.ac.uk *'Cambridge Conundrum' - the argument put forward by HEFCE that the rules for non-completion have to apply equally to each institution, independent of their academic regulation, and that therefore because the University of Cambridge do not allow reassessment until the following year, then no-one can count in-year reassessment as a completion if the first assessment was not submitted/attended. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Please consider the environment. Do you need to print this email? This e-mail, and any attachments, are private and intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) above. Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying are prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Although the Royal College of Music ICT Department checks emails and attachments for known viruses and other defects, you open attachments at your own risk. The Royal College of Music accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this message. Full contact details are found at www.rcm.ac.uk. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________