British Higher Education Funding - Essay Example

Higher Education Funding Introduction Out of all the national policies established by the British government, the has decided to focus on theeducation sector, with the focus being on higher education funding. In a study conducted by Paramewaran & Glowacka (1998), there is a need for higher education institutions to develop their performance in such a way that their graduate students are able to have a competitive advantage and would therefore be able to compete in a competitive global market. Ivy (2001) feels that all over the world, the number of enrolled students are declining, and this fact is directly proportional to the decrease of funding grants. This writer feels that education is a fundamental and basic human need that is required in order for an individual to have the knowledge and skills that would contribute his/her society and the global community. If funding schools in the higher education sector is a problem, then it follows that the development of the nation will be put in jeopardy. According to Jenkins (1995), the quality of higher education in the United Kingdom is questionable and in the past, it has received criticisms from all individuals from all groups. This includes the students themselves, the politicians, the taxpayers and the administrators of universities all over the country, all of whom are disappointed with the teaching system. Gibbs & Jenkins (1992) have explained that funding for the educational sector in the United Kingdom comes from the funding councils, all of whom are assigned to distribute block grants to academic institutions, depending on the number of students currently enrolled per institution. The Government Universities in the United Kingdom are predominantly state funded, with some areas such as Buckingham, having received its charter in 1983. Based on the concept of the quasi-market, the tuition of the students is budgeted by the higher education funding councils. The government intended that academic institutions would be able to receive funds that was equal to the number of students that were enrolled and an estimate of the unit cost of the tuition fees. Such a calculation was done at a disaggregated level, in such a way that allowance was made for inter-subject differences in unit costs. Despite the fact that universities were reimbursed only for the costs involved when it came to teaching a fixed number of students, academic institutions were provided the freedom to recruit as many students as they could and wanted to. Thus, the only income acquired by the university came from the act of allowing extra students to enrol and collecting their tuition fees. Despite this, there was a considerable incentive provided as long as additional students were recruited. This is because years from now, more and more students would be fully funded. In this light, universities that expanded the quickest, in terms of student recruitment numbers, impose the lowest unit costs on the money of the people (Johnes & Johnes, 1994). In the United Kingdom, help is provided for students who are studying full time and students who are studying part time. For the full time student, there are two main sources of help provided. These are namely 1) student loans and grants provided by the government and 2) bursaries from the university or college that the student is enrolled to. The loans taken with the help of the government can be taken out twice per academic year. These are the 1) tuition fee loan, where the student can cover his/her tuition fees in full, and 2) maintenance loan, which refers to loans provided by the government to help the student in accommodation costs as well as other living costs. The amount received is dependent on the student’s household income. Although these loans have to be paid back, the government accepts repayments once the student has graduated or left the course and is earning over £ 15 thousand. Bursaries on the other hand, are additional funds that are provided by the university or college that the student is enrolled in. In the UK, there is a minimum bursary payment if the student is paying maximum tuition fees and is acquiring the full Maintenance Grant or Special Support Grant. Grants and bursaries are not required to be repaid (Directgov, 2010). The problem with promoting cost savings is that there may be a decline in the quality of education being provided to the students. In order to address this issue, the Quality Assessment Division (QAD) of the funding councils conducts focus group discussions where the teaching performance of the teachers are evaluated, depending on the subjects that they teach, or the number of subjects that they teach. These discussions can also be referred to as peer reviews, and the individuals who review the performance of the teachers include other members of the staff, in addition to the administrators of the academic institution. In order to come to a decision, the QAD seeks information from the data noting the quality of the department’s student intake, the expenditure of the school per student, the drop out rate of the student, and even the experience of the student in the labour market after graduating. Such performance indicator are however, not enough. The QAD also conducts visit to the departments being assessed in order to evaluate the quality of the tuition fees (London Economics, 1993). The Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) In the United Kingdom, the Teaching Quality Enhancement Find (TQEF) of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has, since the year 1995, been a state funded project. The TQEF in fact, was established in order to achieve five main goals. These goals are namely 1) Encouragement and reward: For teachers and other school staff members who are devoted to their work and perform well, 2) Coordination and collaboration: With regards to the rationalization of the activities of HEFCE and encouraging the participation of other agencies, 3) Showing and embedding good practice: To support the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and other activities, 4) Research and innovation: Utilizing innovation as a tool to support the development of education and supporting the integration of innovation in learning activities and teaching methods, and 5) Building the possibility to bring about change: Finding capital required and supporting infrastructure (HEFCE, 1999). According to Gosling (2004), the United Kingdom, despite being a developed nation, lacks the funding for development projects in the educational sector- particularly teaching and learning. In addition to this, there is a lack of information sources, and a lack of scholarly approaches to teaching methods and learning activities. This is why the TQEF policy was designed. It was intended to raise the standard of teaching quality, as well as its status. In addition, it was intended to provide funds to encourage the development of all educational institutions, particularly universities and colleges in the country. Reports released by the government have shown the government’s intention to increase research activity within schools, and possibly relating this with the business and economic environment. In addition, the government intends to increase the number of students from lower classes to be able to gain access to higher education. The Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) The Fund for the Development of the Teaching and Learning (FDTL) is one of the major components of the TQEF as discussed in the previous paragraph. The development of the latter is focused on the dissemination and the embedding of best practices when it comes to both teaching and learning, especially in the field of higher education. This programme supports scholarships of teaching and learning activities. Under this organization, projects are funded for around three years, although it is possible that these projects would still be funded later on. The programme is expected to utilize existing work in learning and teaching in such a manner that it is developed and related to a particular subject or subjects. Such work can also be used for the development of materials or tools that can be utilized by the teacher for future classes. The materials that are created as a result have to then be disseminated on a wide scale, evaluated and given for free to any funding council (HEFCE) organization (Gosling, 2004). The Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) The Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) is a network of a total of 24 subject centres that cover the disciplines supported by a central exclusive and a Generic Centre. The aim of the subject centre is to be a source of information and advice when it comes to teaching and learning methods. It is also good source of promoting, encouraging and transferring good practice. In addition, it also promotes awareness whenever new information is available, and it collaborates with school administrators in fulfilling national priorities in the field of teaching and learning (Gosling, 2004). Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) For the following years 2011 to 2011, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) aims to provide a higher quality experience for the student. In order to do this, the organization aims to improve the facilities and technology of academic institutions, both of which are crucial for the development of the entire education sector. Although the universities and colleges already existent provide competitive facilities and the latest technological equipment, what with the global competition and globalization taking over the world today, academic institutions in the county cannot be complacent. All universities and colleges in the country are also expected to publish information that shows their students what they can expect from their own alma mater, with regards to the nature and the quality of the academic programme offered to them. This way, students are already aware of what they are offered, and they are also aware of their responsibilities with regards to their studies, and how the knowledge that they shall gain from school would help them in the future. In addition, through the provision of such information, they would also be able to know the facilities and the technology that they may have access to. Through the funding programmes provided by the HEFCE, students would be more prepared to face the real world and would be more ready to compete with their peers when it comes to looking for employment (HEFCE, 2010). The increase in student numbers, the output produced by research programmes and the research that was privately funded, in addition to consultancy pressurized the estates and finances of the higher education sector, due to the decline of funding. The estate has been considered to be one of the highest expenses of any institution in the higher education sector, therefore making it a target for efficiency gains, especially since there is a surplus of space provision, which is another factor that has to be considered (HEFCE, 2002). According to Hedley et al. (2001), the HEFCE is collaborating with universities and colleges, or higher education institution (HEIs) to develop a reliable, accurate and relevant set of Key Estate Ratios (or KERs). Gaining knowledge about higher education estate is important since this represents an asset worth an estimate of £ 28 billion in terms of insurance replacement. In addition, the management of estates and facilities account for up to 20 percent of the higher education sector’s £12 billion annual spending. Thus, improving the utilization of this resource will definitely benefit academic institutions. Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) Since the Education Reform Act that was established in 1988, the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council has been the replacement organization for the National Advisory Body on Public Sector Higher Education (NAB). The PCFC has been expected to undertake the responsibility to comply with the parameters set aside by the Department of Education and Science (DES), for the budgeting of government funds to the public higher education sector in both England and Wales. Since the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council has been abolished, developments have been the result. It was in March 1989 when the PCFC released a document on funding that showed the change from previous practices regarding the matter. It was then that the term ‘contract funding’ was first introduced, and this went hand in hand with the government’s goal to bring better value for the money paid for tuition, by producing greater accountability and increased competition. Under the new funding system, the PCFC takes note of three important factors. These are student demand, quality and price. Under this new system, universities and colleges alike would bid for student numbers without knowledge of the price/unit of resource. The assembly of the bids then follows and after the public expenditure for the Public Sector for Higher Education (PSHE) is known, then the prices for each student category would then be announced. As a result, academic institutions can then decrease their bids, taking care not to increase them. The second option would be for the PCFC to conduct price bidding. Under this option, universities and colleges would bid annually for numbers of students in various programme areas at different prices. PCFC would then check out these bids and ‘buy’ out what they wanted from the schools. The third option for the PCFC would be to bid on the basis of an institutional plan. Under this method, every university and college is required to submit a business plan every year, where the range of activities and funding sources would be noted. Just like the previous option, the PCFC would ‘buy’ the schools and other services as it wished either at the bidding price or at an agreed level. The fourth option refers to incremental bidding. Such a system is similar to that being used in the United States from the 1960s to the 1970s. This option is one where funding is not guaranteed annually, and it cannot be assumed that funding would be continued (McVicar, 2007). Conclusion There is a need for a better system of inspecting and collecting data with regards to the higher education sector as this can help reduce a lot of finances, which in turn could be put to better use. Administrators of higher education institutions should always looks for new and better methods with how bureaucracy can be reduced. This is because what with the multiple funding organizations all doing their solo reporting, data collection and fulfilling their personal inspection/audit requirements for higher education, unnecessary burdens are caused and more confusion occurs as a result. By reducing the occurrence of bureaucracy, not only will finances be saved, but the quality of teaching and learning within these academic institutions is not sacrificed. Clearly, considering the funding for higher education is very important because as the population all over the world increases, so does the competition to employment also increase. As a result, higher education institutions require funds in order to improve the learning experience of every student, with improvements and developments in teaching methods, the resources available within the institution and the technology being used. At the end of the day, despite the problems with funding, what is important is that the quality of education is not being sacrificed. This should be enough reason for all the organizations involved to collaborate in order to achieve that common goal. References Directgov (2010) Student finance: An introduction. Retrieved on January 12 2010 from http://direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/ StudentFinance/Gettingstarted/DG_171572 Emerald Backfiles (2007) Graduate supply and demand. Gibbs, G., Jenkins, A. (1992 ), Teaching large classes in higher education; maintaining quality with reduced resources, Kogan Page, London Gibson, D. (1995) Personal communication. Hedley, C., Smith, A., & Whelan, J. (2001) Defining, collecting and using property performance indicators: The UK higher education sector experience, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 177-187. HEFCE (1999) Teaching quality enhancement fund, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol. HEFCE (2002) Estates Management Statistics Project Annual Report 2002, Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Scotland and Wales, Bristol, HEFCE (2010) Grant announcement for higher education 2010-2011. Retrieved on January 12 2010 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/grant1011/ Ivy, J. (2001) Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach, The International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 6, pp. 276-282. Jenkins, A. (1995) The research assessment exercise, funding and teaching quality, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 4-12. Johnes, G. & Johnes, J. (1994) Policy reforms and the theory of education finance, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 3-15. London Economics (1993), Review of the options for the additional funding of higher education, report prepared for the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, McVicar, M. (2007) Competitive tendering in higher education? International Journal of Educational Management, 4.1. Paramewaran, R, Glowacka, AE (1995) University image: an information processing perspective, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 6 No.2, pp.41-56. Read More