Average Units of Council Funding for the Academic Year 1995-96
To Heads of HEFCE-funded Institutions
Heads of DENI-funded Universities
Of interest to those responsible for Funding and Finance
Reference R 1/96
Publication Date August 1996
Response by No Response Required
Enquiries to Kathryn Christie (0117 931 7366)n
The electronic version of this document contains the Contents page, Executive Summary and Introductory text with links to the tables. The tables are available in the printed document, on disk from HEFCE External Relations Division, or electronically as comma-separated files.
Contents
| Section 1 | Introduction |
| Section 2 | AUCF's and Student Numbers by ASC (.csv format files) |
| 1.1 Pre-clinical Medicine | |
| 1.2 Clinical Medicine | |
| 1.3 Pre-clinical Dentistry | |
| 1.4 Clinical Dentistry | |
| 1.5 Veterinary Science | |
| 2 Subjects & Professions Allied to Medicine | |
| 3 Science | |
| 4 Engineering & Technology | |
| 5 Built Environment | |
| 6 Mathematical Sciences, IT & Computing | |
| 7 Business & Management | |
| 8 Social Science | |
| 9 Humanities | |
| 10 Art, Design & Performing Arts | |
| 11.2.2 Non ITT Education: Other | |
| Section 3 | Institutional Profiles: 1995-96 Redistributed Funds for Teaching (.csv format file) |
| Section 4 | Institutional Profiles: 1995-96 Early Student Registrations (.csv format file) |
| Section 5 | 1995-96 Part-time Load Factors (.csv format file) |
Executive Summary
1. This report gives details of average units of Council funding (AUCFs) for each mode of study, level of study, and academic subject category (ASC) for the academic year 1995-96. These AUCFs have informed the formula-based funding for teaching designated higher education courses for 1996-97. This report is one of a series on the AUCFs for each academic year. Previous reports were R 1/14/93, R 1/94 and 2/95.
2. The report is split into five sections. Section 1 gives sector-wide information and provides comparisons with previous years. Terminology is also explained. Section 2 provides tables showing the 1995-96 AUCFs and student full-time equivalents (FTEs). For each ASC (and subdivision) the following information is given:
- a. A summary table showing the lower quartile, median, upper quartile and average AUCFs.
- b. Diagrams plotting the distribution of AUCFs.
- c. A list of AUCFs and student (FTEs) for each institution.
3. Sections 3 and 4 provide institutional profiles by ASC in terms of funding and student registrations respectively.
4. For the first time, part-time AUCFs have been calculated in terms of FTEs rather than student registrations. This means that the values of the 1995-96 part-time AUCFs are very different from those reported in 1994-95. However, the part-time and full-time AUCFs are now more comparable. There was very little change to the full-time AUCFs between 1994-95 and 1995-96. The institutional part-time load factors are provided in Section 5.
5. Core funds for teaching in 1995-96 were £2,214.6M and provided for 1.196 million UK and EC fundable student registrations.
Section 1: Sector Analysis
Introduction
6. An important aspect of the HEFCE's funding method for teaching has been that institutions whose costs to the Council are lowest are treated more favourably in future funding allocations (Circular 1/92 'The Funding of Teaching by the HEFCE in 1993-94'). Institutions have an interest in comparing their funding levels and registrations of students with those of others. It is Council policy to be open in how it allocates its funds. This report explains how allocated funds for 1995-96 were redistributed by the institutions. It also gives some insight into the relative costs of institutions to the Council.
7. The data on student registrations in this report were based on information on student enrolments provided to the HEFCE by institutions in December 1995 (Circular 19/95 'Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1995-96' HESES95). Student registrations refer to fundable UK and EC students shown in Column 4 of the HESES95 return. The primary data on the distribution of HEFCE funds for teaching between the various funding cells were obtained from the 1995-96 HEFCE Redistribution Survey (Circular 27/95).
8. The HEFCE gives implicit recognition to the diversity of missions and the differing characters of institutions, and this must be borne in mind when making comparisons.
9. The AUCFs in this document do not represent the cost of teaching students in any particular category. They reflect how each institution chose to represent its distribution of block grant from the Council between ASCs. There are isolated examples of very high AUCFs which may have arisen from an institution committing funds in the redistribution survey in advance of student recruitment.
10. The AUCFs relate only to funding provided by the Council: they exclude publicly-funded fees.
Terminology
11. HEFCE definitions of mode and level are given in Circular 19/95. There are two levels of study:
- a. Taught (T) which includes undergraduates and taught postgraduates.
- b. Research (R) which covers research postgraduates.
12. There are two modes of study:
- a. Full-time and sandwich (FTS) which includes all full-time students and sandwich year out students. Sandwich year out students have a weighting of 0.5 relative to full-time.
- b. Part-time (PT) including distance learners and mainstreamed continuing education students. In previous years, registrations of part-time students were used. This year data on the load factors for each level of study, aggregated over all ASCs, were collected from institutions in HESES95 table 4b and used to calculate the FTEs for part-time students. These FTEs were then used in place of registrations to calculate AUCFs. The load factors returned by the institutions are shown in section 5. A factor of 0.3 was assumed for those institutions which did not return data on student load.
13. Definitions of ASCs are provided in Circular 19/95. They remain unchanged apart from Education (ASC 11): initial teacher training (ITT, ASC 11.1) no longer features as it is now the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency (TTA); non-ITT provision has been disaggregated to identify registrations on in-service training courses for school teachers (INSET). Data on INSET are not included in sections 2 to 5. The numbers and titles are:
| ASC | |
| 1 | Clinical and Pre-clinical subjects split into five sub-categories: |
| 1.1 Pre-clinical Medicine | |
| 1.2. Clinical Medicine | |
| 1.3. Pre-clinical Dentistry | |
| 1.4. Clinical Dentistry | |
| 1.5. Veterinary Science | |
| 2 | Subjects and Professions Allied to Medicine |
| 3 | Science |
| 4 | Engineering and Technology |
| 5 | Built Environment |
| 6 | Mathematical Sciences, Information Technology and Computing |
| 7 | Business and Management |
| 8 | Social Sciences |
| 9 | Humanities |
| 10 | Art, Design and Performing Arts |
| 11.2 | Non-ITT Education split into two sub-categories: |
| 11.2.1. In-service training (INSET) | |
| 11.2.2. Other |
14. Student numbers in ASC 1 (excluding 1.5) are subject to intake targets. The funds for non-ITT education (ASC 11.2) were divided into INSET and Other. The allocation of INSET funds for 1996-97 is now the responsibility of the TTA.
15. Funds are allocated to institutions via a number of funding cells, defined by the ASC, mode and level of study. A count of students and amounts of Council grant are attributed to each cell. In defining a cell the Council has sought to determine a level of classification which allows students to be divided into broadly homogeneous groups without imposing such detail as to make each institution's provision nearly unique.
Core Funds for Teaching in 1995-96
16. Core funds for teaching in English institutions were established in 1992-93 following the merger of the former PCFC and UFC and the creation of the HEFCE. HEFCE Report R 2/95 'Average Units of Council Funding for the Academic Year 1994-95' describes how the 1994-95 core of £2,173M was determined.
17. Core funds increased by £78M from £2,137M in 1994-95 to £2,215M in 1995-96, mainly through inflation and the mainstreaming of continuing education. The following adjustments to core funds for teaching have been made since the publication of the HEFCE Report R 2/95:
Values are in millions of £ [£M]
| 1994-95 Core Funds | 2,137.2 |
| Inflation | 69.3 |
| Baseline Adjustments | -33.0 |
| Roll on 1994-95 Core Proposals | 3.6 |
| EU enlargement | 2.1 |
| Misc. Adjustments | 10.7 |
| 1995-96 Teaching Allocation | 2,189.9 |
| Margin Allocation and Mainstreaming of Continuing Education | 29.5 |
| Net holdback | -5.0 |
| Misc. Adjustments to Core | 0.2 |
| 1995-96 Core funds | 2,214.6 |
| Transfer to TTA for INSET | -27.2 |
| 1995-96 Redistributed Core Funds | 2,187.4 |
18. Chart 1 compares the distribution between ASCs of core funds for 1994-95 with core funds for 1995-96. The reduction in non-ITT education (ASC 11.2) is due to INSET being included in 1994-95 but not in 1995-96.
Student Registrations, FTEs and AUCFs
19. Section 2 shows the AUCFs and student FTEs used to determine the funding allocations for 1996-97. The values of the part-time AUCFs are very different from last year because they are calculated in terms of student FTEs rather than student registrations. For this reason the part-time and full-time AUCFs are more comparable than in previous years. Another change to the PT AUCFs was the mainstreaming of continuing education.
20. The 1996-97 funding for INSET (11.2.1) was provided by the TTA. The transfer of funds to the TTA was made on the basis of the 1995-96 grant allocations. The split of non-ITT funds between INSET and Other was made using information from a joint TTA and HEFCE survey.
21. Within Section 2, there is a separate section for each ASC (and subdivision) containing the following information:
- a. A summary table showing the lower quartile, median, upper quartile and average AUCFs.
- b. Diagrams plotting the distribution of AUCFs.
- c. A list of AUCFs and student FTEs for each institution. For convenience the institutions are listed in the following order: higher education institutions (HEIs) followed by further education colleges (FECs). Some institutions did not redistribute funds into all of the funding cells in which students were recorded. Such cases are marked with an asterisk and are excluded from the analysis.
22. As in previous years, an adjustment was made to ensure comparability of AUCFs between former PCFC, UFC and DFE-funded institutions. A discount of 5.9 per cent was applied to the AUCFs of institutions formerly funded by the UFC and DFE to reflect the difference in employer's contributions to the different superannuation schemes. This adjustment only affected the distribution of a small amount of funding allocations.
23. The HEFCE funds for teaching in 1995-96 provided for a total of 1.196 million UK and EC fundable student registrations (as defined by HESES95 Column 4) out of a total of 1.410 million registrations. The funding of ITT students moved to the TTA and they are not included in the above figures.
24. Charts 2 and 3 show the growth of full-time and part-time fundable UK and EC student registrations by ASC. The drop in PT registrations within ASC 11.2 is due to the INSET students being included in 1994-95 but not in 1995-96.
25. Charts 4 and 5 show the distribution between full-time and part-time modes of study in 1995-96. Chart 4 is based on student registrations; chart 5 takes account of the part-time students' FTEs.
26. For each ASC, the AUCFs used for comparing institutions have been calculated for all cells and are shown in Section 2. Calculations are in respect of grants for teaching only: alternative or supplementary sources of funding are not included. Charts 6 and 7 show the change in average AUCFs by ASC between 1994-95 and 1995-96, after taking account of additions to core funds in 1995-96. There is very little change in the full-time AUCFs. The reduction in ASC 11.2 is due to INSET being included in 1994-95 but not in 1995-96.
27. Chart 8 shows the effect on the AUCFs of changing from student registrations to student load. 28. Any comparison of AUCFs between academic years is likely to be a misleading indicator of the underlying change in the unit of public funding and should not be interpreted as such.
Core Funds for 1996-97
29. The 1995-96 core funds were increased by 2.75 per cent for inflation to form the starting point of the 1996-97 allocation.
30. A baseline reduction of 2.75 per cent was required of the sector in 1996-97. This average baseline reduction of 2.75 per cent was applied differentially to institutions on the basis of their AUCF within each of the funding cells. For all ASCs, the maximum reduction within a cell (applied to the institution with the highest AUCF) was fixed at 4 per cent and the minimum at 2 per cent. All holdback was redistributed across ASCs, pro-rata to the share of total core funds.