VAL0033

Written Evidence submitted by the University and College Union

1. The University and College Union (UCU) is the UK’s largest trade union for academic and academic-related staff in higher and further education, representing over 100,000 members working in universities, colleges, training providers, adult education settings and prisons.  We welcome the opportunity to respond to the select committee inquiry into value for money in higher education.

2. The higher education sector offers significant economic and social value to individuals, business and the taxpayer. UK universities contributed £21.5bn to UK GDP in 2014-15[1], and graduates continue to enjoy an employment and earnings premium despite the rise in student numbers.[2]

3. However, the starting point for the inquiry is clear: England now has the highest public university tuition fees in the industrialised world.[3] With the rise in interest rates on loans to 6.1%, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that students in England are going to graduate with average debts of £50,800 and that this figure rises to over £57,000 for students from the poorest backgrounds.[4] In addition, the latest report from London Economics shows that graduates face a mid-life tax crisis as many of them will spend their 30s and 40s dealing with effective tax rates of above 50%. [5]

4. UCU believes that the current funding model is neither fair nor sustainable. The recent proposal to raise the repayment threshold from £21,000 to £25,000 is a small step in the right direction, but it will not address the unfairness in the current financial support system in which students from the lowest income backgrounds end up borrowing significantly more than their richer counterparts.

5. Politicians of all stripes are now recognising that the complex issue of student funding must be revisited and we welcome the proposal for a ‘major review’. However, it needs to be an independent, wide-ranging review that considers all policy options. UCU believes that the time has come for a key beneficiary of higher education, business, to pay its fair share of the cost. That’s why we have been calling for Business Education Tax to help finance the costs of higher education.[6]

6. The review of funding also needs to look again at the effectiveness of the quasi-market framework in England. In our view, the current funding and regulatory model has led to several poor outcomes for students, employers and taxpayers.

7. The most damaging aspect has been the negative impact on the number of part-time and mature students in higher education and the loss of professional development opportunities for students in work[7].

8. Intense competition has also led to increased pressure to spend money on attracting students rather than on front-line delivery (e.g. through capital spending on new buildings and facilities and expensive marketing and recruitment campaigns).[8] This is in direct opposition to the educational preferences of students, who would prefer institutions to spend less on buildings and sports facilities and more on investment in teaching.[9]

9. Finally, extending the loans system to private providers has led to poorer educational outcomes and little evidence of innovation. For example, the National Audit Office[10] continues to report higher drop-out rates and ineligible payments at some private providers, while the latest HESA data shows that most private providers offer a limited range of courses mostly focussed in business and administration.[11]

Graduate outcomes and destination data

10. UCU recognises that potential students should have access to information about graduate outcomes, including labour market data, and we note that graduate tracking is a priority for the European Commission.[12] 

11. However, there are methodological limitations with the UK graduate destinations survey as well as new Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data. Some of these flaws are technical - for example, the inability of LEO data to capture self-employment but the biggest problem is a structural one. Graduate economic outcomes largely reflect the inequalities that already exist in wages and the labour market.

12. Research shows that graduate earnings are closely linked to a prior school attainment, which in turn is heavily influenced by students’ socio-economic backgrounds.[13] Graduate labour market outcomes are also heavily affected by gender, ethnicity, subject and the location of the university.

13. In addition, a sole emphasis on graduate earnings fails to recognise the wider external benefits of higher education participation, which include better health, greater civic participation and volunteering. It also fails to account for individual circumstances and motivations – for example, having to take time out of work to care for children or relatives, or choosing to work for a charity for relatively low pay – both of which can bring significant benefit to society but can affect earnings potential.

14. For these reasons, we are opposed to using graduate outcomes data as a measure of the ‘quality of teaching’ (i.e. for the Teaching Excellence Framework). We are concerned that the government is pushing ahead with using LEO data as part of its plans for the TEF and will resist any new proposals to link LEO data to funding.

Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students

15. If the government opts to link LEO data to funding, one of the first casualties will be the widening participation agenda. Even under the current system there has been a growth in financial inequality between and within higher education institutions. For example, those institutions with the strongest records on widening access have tended to do less well under the current fee regime, particularly since the abolition of student number controls.[14] Instead, we call on the government to reward institutions which increase participation of students from under-represented groups and also to help these students to succeed.

16. Above all, we need to restate the case for widening participation and social justice at the heart of higher education policy. This will require real action on the part of universities, for example in tackling degree attainment gaps between white and BME students.[15] However, it will also require a change in government policy on financial support for disadvantaged students.

17. Maintenance grants are a crucial incentive for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are already daunted by the prospect of cripplingly high tuition fee debt. UCU-commissioned research showed that when young people choose to go to university, those from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to put cost at the forefront of their decision-making, often opting for institutions close to home that offer cheaper study that can be combined with part-time work. The report found that the availability of maintenance grants would have the most impact on non-white young people in encouraging them to apply to university.[16]

18. Replacing maintenance grants with loans has only increased student and national debt and cost everyone more in the long run. We need an overhaul of the financial support system. Learners should know what support they will get before they begin their courses and that is why we favour a return of maintenance grants rather than relying on institutional bursaries and scholarships.

19. We are also calling for properly funded and consistent additional learning support (ALS) funding to support disabled learners to fully access and participate in both further and higher education.  Recent reductions is Disabled Students Allowance and funding for student support workers risk putting off students who are disabled and jeopardises their progress and attainment whilst studying.

20. Finally, while support for students at university is crucial, we need to look again at the admissions process. We need a fairer, more transparent system based on actual achievement rather than estimates of potential. Research undertaken for UCU by the UCL Institute of Education found that just 16% of applicants' grades were predicted correctly. It also found socioeconomic differences in predicted grades: 24% of AAB applicants from lower income backgrounds are under-predicted compared to 20% of AAB applicants from the highest income backgrounds.[17]

21. UCU calls for a ban on the use of unconditional offers based on predicted grades and to explore a move to post-qualification admissions (PQA) which allows students to be selected on the basis of their results rather than predicted grades.

Senior management pay in universities

22. UCU welcomes the increased public focus, including by the select committee, on spiralling senior management pay in universities. UCU research shows that university heads received an average salary package of £277,834 for the academic year 2015/16. 

23. Over the past few years UCU has tried to shine a spotlight on this issue but we have encountered resistance from university management. For example, in 2015/16 three-quarters of universities refused to provide unredacted minutes of their remuneration committees meetings when asked by UCU through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. 

24. Previous research by the union revealed that over two-thirds (71%) of vice-chancellors who responded to union's FOI are either members of the university's remuneration committee or can attend (although the true figure is likely to be higher as some refused to even answer the question). A total of 13 institutions refused to provide any details of the vice-chancellor’s pay and perks in response to the request from the union in 2015/16.[18]

25. We welcome the recent announcement by the universities’ minister to introduce a new ongoing condition of registration requiring providers to “publish the number of staff paid more than £100,000 per year and to provide a clear justification of the salaries of those paid more than £150,000 per annum.” This is a small step in the right direction, although we believe that a public register of senior management pay and perks is still needed to restore public confidence.

26. The excessive rise in senior management pay has coincided with a bigger employment-related problem: the deterioration in working conditions and salaries for staff at the academic chalk face, particularly people on precarious contracts. We will return to this issue in the next section.

Quality and effectiveness of teaching

27. Over the past few years, studies have shown improvement in several areas of teaching and the student experience, including greater engagement of students with the design and delivery of their education.[19] The most recent HEA/HEPI survey also points to a clear year-on-year increase in student perceptions on teaching quality.

28. However, there are areas for improvement and many of these relate to the ways in which institutions value their teaching staff. Above all, we believe that if the higher education sector is serious about supporting and valuing high-quality teaching, then academics must be at the centre of the process and governments and universities must address underlying issues such as casualisation, workloads and career progression.

29. UCU believes that the employment model used in universities, which relies extensively on temporary teaching, has a direct impact on quality but this is not addressed by the Teaching Excellence Framework. Despite the best efforts of the many excellent temporary teachers, the current situation is unsustainable. Temporary contract working is endemic across UK higher education, with 69,000 (43%) out of a total of 161,000 contracted academic staff on non-permanent contracts. Among 40,000 teaching only staff, 29,435 (73%) have non-permanent contracts.[20] These figures do not include the 75,000 so-called atypical academic staff who are also largely engaged in teaching but who are usually employed only on an “as and when” basis and have little access to career development or other scholarship opportunities.

30. More than two-fifths (42%) of staff on casual contracts, such as controversial zero-hours contracts, in universities and colleges have struggled to pay household bills, according to UCU research.[21] Job insecurity also impacts on the quality of the student learning experience, for example, on marking and assessment processes and the opportunities for staff on casual contracts to access professional development. [22] Students and their parents have a right to know if lecturers are secure in their employment, as it can impact on the quality of teaching they can deliver. There is now a large body of research in the United States, compiled over a 20-year period, which shows casualisation has a clear impact on student educational outcomes.[23] However, we remain frustrated at the lack of focus on this issue here in the UK.

31. We need to see major improvements to the professional and working lives of the thousands of sessional staff who teach in our universities and colleges. In UCU’s view, casualisation can be tackled by a far greater use of workforce planning and improved contracts. As yet university employers have failed to pick up this challenge.

The role of the Office for Students

32. We note the recent publication of the consultation on behalf of the Office for Students (OfS) and will be responding to it in due course. The priorities for UCU include guaranteeing that the governance of the OfS can protect the collective interests of staff and students, ensuring that the ‘public good’ of higher education is valued as much as the requirement to promote ‘competition’ and the importance of maintaining a coherent system of quality assurance and regulation across UK higher education.

33. We have a particular interest in ensuring that the registration process developed by the OfS will require institutions to provide real evidence of their commitment to the principle of academic freedom. Recent research[24] shows that UK protections for academic freedom are weaker than those in other EU nations and we are concerned that a greater influx of private, for-profit providers will further reduce protections for academic freedom. 

34. In their role as ‘student champion’, we call for the OfS to look at important workforce issues like insecure contracts and student: staff ratios which directly impact upon quality and the student experience, but which the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has had a poor record in either analysing or addressing.

35. UCU has been a strong supporter of the work of Office of Fair Access (OFFA) in encouraging institutions to take widening participation seriously. We will be lobbying to ensure that their good work is not watered down once it is subsumed within the OfS.