25 June 2007

Well, have the gloomy predictions been proved right, has the gradual hike in fees led to a downturn in the numbers of adult learners?

Numbers may be down but fees are not the issue according to this research. “The limited evidence that does exist,” it argues, “suggests fee increases over the past couple of years have not had a dramatic impact on learner numbers.” Moreover college managers are saying that ‘they were surprised by the limited impact fee increases had had and the number of complaints related to fee increases had been very small.’ Mind you not all colleges chose to implement the increases straight away, “just over a quarter were phasing elements in over a number of years,” some were pretty coy about advertising any increase, “the general belief was that maintaining a low profile was the best policy,” and there are always exceptions to the rule but overall, the glass can be fairly said to be half full.

It was four years ago that the Government announced that it wanted a new framework for setting fees in FE, variously described as re balancing or re engineering the contributions. Either way the plain fact of the matter was that the Government through the LSC, was going to contribute less in terms of public funds and those who could pay, be they individuals or employers, would contribute more. The case put forward in various Papers such as the 2005 Skills White Paper, was clear. Public investment should be directed to where it was most needed and would have the greatest benefit in raising skill levels, increasing productivity and rising to the global challenge.

So a comprehensive set of criteria was developed for who should or should not pay; basically 16 – 18 year olds, those studying for a recognised basic skills or full Level 2 qualification and those learners in receipt of benefits would not, the rest would. A list of accredited qualifications that would be supported was duly drawn up and the LSC embarked on a plan to raise the fee assumption, in other words the amount that those who had to pay should, from 25% to 27.5% in 2005/6, to 32.5% this year, 37.5% next and 50% by 2010. Details of these and other changes to fee contributions have been carefully spelt out each autumn in the LSC’s annual Priorities for Success Papers. These provide the funding ‘manual’ for the coming year; for instance, details of changes to ESOL funding which have caused such difficulties this year can be found in last autumn’s Priorities document.

Two factors have added to the funding ‘story’ since its original path was plotted back in 2004. One is the rise and rise of Train to Gain as an alternative funding mechanism directed at employers and offered through a brokerage service and the other is the drive towards demand led funding as sketched out by Leitch. In each case these are early days and the impact on college funding yet to be fully realised but the revised fee regime has been around a bit longer and it’s the impact of that which forms the basis of this useful piece of research commissioned by the LSC. There are some interesting, if sometimes mixed, messages in this research.

First, and perhaps an indication of how responsive as a sector FE is, most colleges either have responded or are in the process of responding to the policy to increase fees. Over 80% of the surveyed 70 colleges increased their fees this year in line with the LSC assumption. This was particularly noticeable in full time provision where “the mean average tuition fee charged increased from £352 to £550.” Fees for full time learners seem to have increased significantly over the last few years; “in 2005/6, 45% of colleges did not charge a fee for this category of learner whereas by 2006/7 this had fallen to just 7%.”

There didn’t appear to be significant regional differences in fee levels though fees for individual courses did vary a fair bit across the country. For example fees for a part time AS level evening course, a pretty popular standard FE course, ranged from £98 to £295 with a mean of £172 against an assumed LSC fee assumption of £188. Fees for an NVQ 2 in Hairdressing, another popular FE offer, ranged from under £200 to over £800. There may be a number of reasons for this such as different target markets and different delivery hours but as the Paper points out, “it doesn’t appear as though specific courses have an established price in the market place that would be recognisable to learners.” As it concludes, “the challenge for the sector is to establish a clear relationship between value and price that is widely understood by individuals and employers.”

Second, and an area that was more confusing, the impact of fees on recruitment. Confusing because while more than half of the surveyed colleges reckoned that fee increases had had an effect on recruitment, “in depth interviews with college managers revealed that many were unsure.” That said many were concerned about the longer term impact particularly in deprived parts of the country and there were curriculum ‘pockets’ where it was reckoned fee hikes had hit enrolments. These included IT, language courses, outreach and distance learning but as the Paper concludes, “attempting to isolate the impact of fees on recruitment within this overall context is difficult.” Most colleges surveyed reported large drops in publicly funded adult learners on FE courses but interestingly this was planned for by colleges “to ensure their curriculum mix was aligned with Government priorities.” The conclusion was that ‘price awareness and the importance of progression potential were more important factors than ability to pay.’

Third, it’s clear that in response to Government policy, colleges are significantly curtailing the use of fee remissions. “Many colleges have phased out certain categories of fee concessions such as discounts for senior citizens” although part of the reason for this is age discrimination legislation. Three factors are worth noting here: fee concession policy is not always linked to local deprivation; the fall in concessions is being offset by a rise in adults receiving Government based concessions; and colleges are using the Learner Support Fund as an alternative funding boat but this is patchy and needs reviewing.

Fourth, unsurprisingly colleges are increasingly turning to full cost work to recoup fees. The Paper identifies six variants: customised professional courses for employers; customised occupational specific provision for employers; professional and vocational courses; adult recreational programmes; consultancy services; and specialist provision. But there aren’t easy pickings and it can take time to nurture. There’s still the belief that much of this should be provided for free. Changing that sort of attitude is perhaps the biggest challenge of all.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2007. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk