David,
Many thanks for your comments on the background policy imperatives which
are influencing HEFCE at the present time.

One wonders what is the meaning of 'targeted funding' if no-one is going
to check whether or not institutions are even aiming at the targets let
alone whether they have hit them!

I referred to the "fig-leaf of protection that the TQEF afforded"
because I am aware that some institutions have never felt constrained to
ring fence TQEF or WP money for the purposes that HEFCE intended but
have simply concocted some narrative for the purposes of the
increasingly moribund annual statement to explain how the money was
spent. I know of at least one WP officer (at PL level) who was amazed
when she was told by a finance officer that her faculty had been
allocated one million pounds to spend on WP since she was not aware of
this budget and certainly had not been allocated a budget for WP
activity. At least in this case the institution had allocated the money
to faculties. In some cases neither TQEF nor WP monies have been
allocated to the relevant central or faculty-based units.

However, in other cases EDUs have been given all the TQEF money to spend
and this has funded a considerable proportion of their activities even
if salaries are paid from core funding.

In these cases EDUs are going to have persuade institutions to fund all
these activities from the next financial year from the TESS 'targeted
allocation'. I am sure in some places TESS funding will be used in the
way intended, but in other cases, especially where budgets are
hard-pressed, the money will be diverted into general teaching
activities and a post facto justifications will be given. 

I do have some experience of working with CETLs and the lack of
accountability to HEFCE for how the money is being spent is both
surprising to CETL Directors (who expect to be held accountable for
their spending) and disappointing because they felt that all their
efforts to provide good interim evaluation reports have been totally
ignored. It is perhaps ironic that far from being grateful for being
freed from bureaucracy they feel hurt that no-one appears to be taking
any notice of whether the money being spent is actually having any
impact. 

I believe that some ring-fencing had gone too far, for example the TQEF
money that was allocated on condition that it was spent on
research-based teaching. When requirements such as this lead
institutions to essentially fabricate rationales in order to get the
money it is clearly serving little purpose. Nevertheless, as the
evaluation of TQEF argued, 

"TQEF support helped to make more things possible in a quicker
timescale. Second, by earmarking money for learning and teaching, TQEF
funding sent important messages to HEIs which would not have been the
case if the funds had simply been added to the formula allocation. In
some research intensive institutions the TQEF funds were particularly
valuable in flagging the importance of enhancing teaching, and
signalling that it was acceptable to devote central university resources
to this kind of activity." (HEFCE 2005). Nevertheless, the trend

Ed Dev could be in for a difficult time in the next few years after a
decade of relatively well-funded activity as it adjusts to the end of
TQEF.


David Gosling
Higher Education Consultant
Visiting Research Fellow
University of Plymouth 
tel/fax: 0161 456 6148
mobile: 0784 1647275


-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kernohan
Sent: 05 September 2008 10:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: HEFCE announces end to TQEF in consultation paper 08_28


Hi David

As I no longer work for HEFCE I think I am finally allowed to comment on
this 
kind of stuff! (though, naturally, these are personal opinions and do
not 
represent the thinking of either my former or current employer)

Basically the dominant pressure on HEFCE at the moment is the need to 
remove layers of regulation. This pressure comes from two sources - the 
"modernising bureaucracy" agenda in DIUS (and more widely in
government), 
and the feedback from senior institutional staff that they just want
lots of 
money without all those nasty forms to fill in. My impression is that
this is 
leading to a lot of i's not being dotted, and t's left uncrossed - all
in the name 
of Better Regulation. You may have seen this with the startlingly hands
off 
approach to monitoring CETL work, a big shift from what used to happen
with 
FDTL as I'm sure many of you remember.

The aim seems to be to move as much "ring-fenced" funding into T core as

possible, leaving institutions to allocate against their own strategies
with 
occasional oversight by HEFCE regional teams and the by now
abbreviated-to- the-point-of-atrophy Annual Monitoring Statement.

You don't need me to tell you why this is silly - or to note that a
couple of 
juicy scandals would probably send them scurrying back the other way.

Or to speculate as to precisely why we need a 200-strong organisation to

make what could end up as one payment to institutions every year.

Anyway, if I was an EdDev in an institution, I'd be getting my
thumbprints on 
as many institutional strategies and policies as possible.

David


This message has been scanned by MailController -
www.MailController.altohiway.com