Request 00/41HESES2000Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 2000-01This electronic version of the document contains the body of the document only. The full document with annexes and the sample tables are also available - see below.
Executive summaryPurpose1. This document asks institutions to complete the annual survey on full-time equivalent student load on recognised higher education (HE) courses. Key points2. The data will:
3. This document provides:
4. Information contained in the annexes will help institutions to complete the survey.
Action required5. Survey data, on disk with a hard copy, should be returned by 6 December 2000. Disks will be dispatched to institutions in November 2000. The HESES2000 Survey6. The following sources of data will inform our allocation of funds for 2001-02:
7. HESES2000 should be completed by all higher education institutions (HEIs) receiving HEFCE recurrent funds for teaching. The Research Activity Survey 2000 will be issued in October 2000: it should be completed by all institutions in receipt of HEFCE funding for research in 2000-01, or that expect to receive such funding in 2001-02. 8. Coverage of the HESES2000 survey is given in Annex D. Definitions of when activity should be counted are in Annex E. Annexes F to L explain how to record different categories of activity. 9. All activity that meets the criteria set out in Annexes D and E should be reported, even if it will not be used directly to allocate funds. 10. For allocation purposes we source various information from the HESA/FEFC 1999-2000 individualised student record, in particular, we expect to use the following fields:
Incomplete records will adversely affect the funding allocations. 11. Institutions should note that further education colleges make a similar return to HEFCE on the Higher Education in Further Education: Students Survey 2000-01 (HEIFES2000). Data collection and verification12. Enquiries about this survey should be addressed to Hannah Falvey (tel 0117 931 7478, e-mail heses@hefce.ac.uk). There is a web page featuring answers to frequently asked questions and examples of completed HESES returns. The web page will also contain any amendments or clarifications that need to be made after the publication and disk are sent out. It can be found on the HEFCE web-site, www.hefce.ac.uk, under ‘Questions’, then ‘HESES frequently asked questions’. The web page is updated regularly and institutions are expected to look here for guidance before and during completion of their HESES return. We will use an e-mail list of HESES contacts in order to notify institutions of any significant changes or updates. We will not use this to simply notify of changes to the web-site. 13. A computer disk, containing an Excel workbook, will be dispatched directly to institutional contacts in November 2000. Notes on the disk are at Annex P. 14. The disk contains a number of validation checks, detailed in Annex O, and we will carry out further checks when we receive it. Once data have been validated, institutions will be asked to verify their returns. We may refuse to revise allocations once data have been verified. Outline timetable and process for the 2001-02 funding round15. Institutions are required to return their HESES survey by 6 December 2000, both on disk and in hard copy. Once we receive the data, we carry out a number of validation and credibility checks, and calculate whether institutions have met their funding contract for 2000-01. During December, we will write to institutions, enclosing a printout of their HESES data and comparison and holdback reports generated from them. Institutions will be asked to:
16. By mid-January 2001, all institutions must have signed off their HESES data as being correct as at the census date of 1 December 2000. The timetable for this is tight: if corrections to data are made, we then reissue the data for re-verification by institutions. We will normally expect institutions to answer any questions about data within six working days. 17. During January we will consider appeals for mitigation of holdback. Institutions will be notified of the outcomes of their appeals in February. At the end of January we will also announce the provisional Maximum Student Number (MaSN) for 2001-02. Institutions will have one week in which to appeal for a change to their MaSN. The outcomes of any MaSN appeals will also be notified in February. We will announce provisional allocations of recurrent grant and confirm MaSNs for 2001-02 in March. Precise dates will be published on our web-site in November. 18. In January 2002, we will compare HESES2000 data with the July 2001 HESA student record and the July 2000-01 FEFC individualised student record (ISR). Changes in funding may result from this comparison. Returns19. Survey data, on disk with a hard copy, should be returned to: HESES Returns may be made by e-mail to heses@hefce.ac.uk, but the disk and a hard copy should still be sent to the above address. 20. Returns should be received no later than 6 December 2000. Late returns21. Where an institution fails to return data on time, without prior authorisation, or the returned data are not accurate, we may base the allocation of funds on our own estimate of student activity. Audit22. We will audit HESES2000 data. Institutions should therefore keep an adequate audit trail recording how the data were derived. This is especially important where institutions are including estimates or making judgements, for example, the basis for forecasting non-completions should be recorded. The HEFCE audit service will also seek to rely on any relevant internal audit work which has been carried out on the student record system and/or the method for compiling the HESES return, where appropriate. 23. As part of our audit process we will compare HESES2000 data with a variety of other data, most notably individualised HESA data as these become available. We may make retrospective adjustments to funding in the light of these comparisons. Details of how we will compare data are given in Annex N. It is not possible to create an exact mapping between individualised data and HESES data. Institutions should therefore consider the guidance given in Annexes D to L as definitive. Annexes M and N, though not definitive, describe our monitoring process. We will also compare data returned on HESES2000 and data returned on the Research Activity Survey 2000. We may refuse to accept data where there are significant differences. Audit of HESES9924. The HESES99 data audit exercise audited 23 institutions. The audits highlighted areas in which some institutions are incorrectly interpreting the HESES guidance. The findings included:
Estimation of non-completions25. The definition of a non-completion is included in Annex E. The audits identified a common misconception that withdrawals notified from an academic department are the sole source of data for that department’s non-completion estimate. Estimation of the number of non-completions should normally be based on the non-completion rate for the previous year for the particular course. Where this is not the case, there should be a clear rationale for any alternative methods used or adjustments made. Completion is not determined by academic success but by whether the student has completed the end-of-year assessment or exam. Assignment of departments to cost centres26. Departments should be assigned to cost centres according to the guidance given in ‘Assignment of departments to academic cost centres:1999-2000’ (HEFCE 00/13). The audits found, that sometimes, all academic activity for a department is assigned to only one cost centre where a split between cost centres would be more appropriate, or, where a department is split between cost centres, a standard division is applied irrespective of the actual split in staff effort for that department. In future, we may ask institutions to provide evidence of how they have allocated particular departments to cost centres. Apportionment of student load to cost centres27. The allocation of student load to cost centres and therefore to price groups presented problems where provision for a course is in more than one department and cost centre or where a department is split between cost centres. If a part of a course or a module of a course is provided by a different cost centre to the rest of the course, this should be identified on the HESA record, and on HESES by mapping the relevant student load to the correct price group. Where the student load for a course is split between cost centres the load should be apportioned in an appropriate ratio. The ratio should be calculated on an individual course basis and reviewed regularly. It is not appropriate for a ratio calculated for one course to be applied to other courses. More guidance is included in Annex K, paragraphs 13 to 19. Inadequate audit trail28. In some cases, the audit trail between the student record systems and the HESES return was inadequate. A record of the basis for making estimations of non-completions and forecast countable years should be kept along with any relevant printouts and working papers used in completing the return. This is particularly important where only one person is responsible for the return as the return has to be reproducible even if they leave. The audit trail should be retained for at least three years. Source documents like registration forms should be similarly retained. Where an institution uses document image processing or other methods to store such information, the original documents should normally be retained for at least one year and the ‘copy’ retained for at least a further two years. Authorisation of the HESES return29. At many institutions, the person responsible for the production of the HESES return also ‘signs it off’ on the institution’s behalf. For the HESES2000 return we will be requiring the VC/Principal or their most appropriate deputy to sign off the return on the institution's behalf. This person should be different from, and preferably senior to, the preparer of the return. The independent reviewer should broadly assess the return for reasonableness before signing off the return. This requires the reviewer to have an understanding of our data collection requirements, to ensure that the institution has systems capable of producing an accurate and complete return and that the preparer of the return has compiled it competently. Full document and Annexes Sample tables
|
Skip to: main content | section navigation
You are in :
- Publications
- > 2000
- > Request 00/41
- > 2000