1 / 24

FE Funding in Turbulent Times – Winners and Losers

FE Funding in Turbulent Times – Winners and Losers. Mick Fletcher. FE or HE. HEFCE teaching cut by more than SFA teaching BUT Loans are tested in HE; not in FE Research Growth v 16-19 efficiency savings Overseas students supported in HE Serious loss of fee remission in FE

audi
Download Presentation

FE Funding in Turbulent Times – Winners and Losers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FE Funding in Turbulent Times – Winners and Losers Mick Fletcher

  2. FE or HE • HEFCE teaching cut by more than SFA teaching BUT • Loans are tested in HE; not in FE • Research Growth v 16-19 efficiency savings • Overseas students supported in HE • Serious loss of fee remission in FE • Infatuation with apprenticeships

  3. Participation Rates

  4. Participation Rates

  5. Work & WBL

  6. Individuals • Loss of funding for 25+ • Loss of Adult Learner Grant & RSS • Loss of fee remission • Loss of SfL premium • Reduced volume of provision

  7. Funding Eligibility

  8. Age of learners in General FE colleges, 2003/04 Full-time equivalents All learners

  9. Adult FE Funding

  10. Adult Learner Grant • Around 30,000 recipients in 2008/9 • Most ALG recipients (80%) were studying for a Level 3 qualification. The most popular courses undertaken by ALG learners continue to be BTEC qualifications (46%, higher at 54% among men), followed by NVQs (15%) and Access to HE courses (13%). As in previous years the top broad sector subject areas were Arts, Media and Publishing (20%), and Health, Public Services and Care (18%). • Most were aged 25 or under (84%), and two thirds (67%) were under 21; Just over half (52%) were female – slightly lower than the figure among all learners on the ILR (54%);

  11. Skills Investment Strategy “We will focus fully-funded provision on people who are unemployed; on people on Jobseekers Allowance and Employment Support Allowance (Work Related Activity Group) to help them obtain work. Such training could include units and awards as well as full qualifications.” Meaning We want to stop fee remission for everybody else.

  12. Fee remission categories

  13. Fee Remission

  14. Rate cuts - Basic Skills

  15. Employers • No pressure to contribute cash • Full funding for 19-24 level 3 apps. • No need to fund 25+ level 3 apps • No compulsion, licence to practice etc. • Continued leverage through SSCs • New role in LEPs • BUT Loss of Train to Gain

  16. Investment in Adult Learning - Cash

  17. Investment in Adult Learning - Time

  18. Providers • Rate cuts and new approach to rates • Moving towards payments on outcomes • Need to replace EMAs and ALG from dLSF • Single (adult) budget almost • End of targets but some heavy expectations • Funding units (for some) • Assumption of substantial fee income

  19. Setting rates • From cost based to price driven • The role of Credit • Increased efficiency 16-18 • SLN learner Ratio

  20. A price based system • We recognise that moving to an outcome-based system will necessitate wider changes to the funding methodology. This is an area where we would like to hear the sector’s views. For example: • • What does a move to a greater focus on price contestability mean for different delivery organisations where public and private sectors have different cost bases? • • If we moved to a price-based approach, would we need to change the balance of payment so that the majority was on achievement rather than the current system where the majority is paid on-programme? • • Could we use price to incentivise delivery for those most in need, and the outcomes we most want to see - for example to support unemployed people into training and work?

  21. Price led funding

  22. Fee Income Assumptions • Loans planned at £129 million in 13/14 £398 million in 14/15 • Assuming 25% multiplier as in HE means £516 million extra fees in 13/14 £1.6 billion extra fees in 14/15 • Fee income currently £130 million

  23. Fee Income (Individuals)

  24. Chris Banks • Career Development loans - rejected • Matching funding to fee income - rejected • Collecting cash from employers - rejected • Fee remission for low paid - rejected • Freedom to confer bursaries - lost

More Related