UK: Peers champion ELQs

The great and the good of the higher education world, who now sit in the House of Lords, last week united in opposition to the government’s plan to cut funding for students who register for a qualification that is equivalent to or lower than one they already hold – ELQs.

In a parliamentary debate, peers including chancellors, vice-chancellors and prominent academics, engaged in an animated discussion that left David, now Lord, Triesman, Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, heavily on the defensive.

At issue is the government’s desire to reduce funding by £100 million (US$204 million) in 2010-11 and redistribute it to encourage more first degree students into higher education. Ministers claim the removal of public funding will affect only perpetual students and others taking second degrees.

However, as University World News reported recently, Britain’s pioneering Open University is set to lose more than £31 million in teaching funding by 2014-15; Birkbeck College, which specialises in part-time degrees for mature students, is likely to lose £7.8 million; and many other universities will be forced to charge ELQ students higher fees.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England, charged by the government to carry out the funding reorganisation, has just ended a consultation on how this should be achieved. The higher education sector was angry over the lack of prior consultation about the policy itself.

During lengthy debate in the Lords, peers pointed out repeatedly the ‘unintended consequences’ of this move. Baroness (Margaret) Sharp, Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on education and a former academic, said the OU reckoned it would lose 29,000 of its 120,000 students.

“Brenda Gourley, its vice-chancellor, remarked to me, ‘That is three medium-sized universities. Is that what the government really intended?’” Sharp said, adding that the post-1992 universities had a fair number of students taking second qualifications. Courses would become non-viable so institutions would be forced to close them.

Baroness (Diana) Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, and Baroness (Tessa) Blackstone, a former Labour education minister and now vice-chancellor of Greenwich University, waded in, saying: “A little less haste and a bit more consultation would go a long way.”

Lord (Brian) Rix, former actor-manager and head of the charity Mencap but now chancellor of the University of East London, asked how many women students would be affected? His university served an area where women studied part-time to gain career-relevant qualifications, especially in the care and social work professions. Cutting this funding would have a discriminatory impact, Rix warned.

Lord (David) Puttnam, film maker and chancellor of the OU, thought it was “a bad policy, a policy based on a false choice”. When Triesman tried to defend the government’s decision, he was quickly rebuked. The funds would be directed to 20,000 new students, in line with the agenda on widening participation, he said.

Blackstone interrupted him by asking: “Where does he think that those 20,000 students are going to come from? Many universities are struggling to meet their Hefce contracts.”

The minister promised to study the issues raised in the debate, and the Hefce will be looking at the results of their consultation exercise. A decision is likely to be made at its next board meeting on 26 January.