Report 00/45

Public resources for teaching and student numbers in HEFCE-funded institutions: 1999-2000

Executive summary

Purpose

1. This document presents the underlying data on which our allocations of funds for teaching in 2000-01 were based.

Key points

2. This report is a retrospective look at the teaching funds and student numbers in the 1999-2000 academic year. It gives details of the student full-time equivalents (FTEs) in each price group, the assumed resource (HEFCE grant plus assumed fee income), and the expected resource inclusive of the premiums in the current (2000-01) teaching method.

3. A time series of comparisons of resource in the HEFCE teaching model for higher education institutions (HEIs) is included to show how the values in this document fit those of the grant tables.

Action required

4. No action is required.

Background

5. This document outlines the method we used to allocate our teaching funds for the 2000-01 academic year. It presents the underlying data on which the funding allocations were based.

6. For the 2000-01 allocations, the mature premium was applied to further education colleges (FECs) for the first time. The information given in this report is based on:

• the premiums which apply in 2000-01
• the student numbers collected in December 1999
• the 1999-2000 student fee assumptions.

7. The report presents the resource allocated and the student numbers recruited in the 1999-2000 academic year. It applies the current model to the students recruited in 1999-2000.

Structure and terminology of the teaching funding method

8. A full description of the funding method for teaching is given in ‘Funding higher education in England: How the HEFCE allocates its funds’ (HEFCE 00/07). Details of the grant allocations for 2000-01 are in the following documents:

• Recurrent grants for 1999-2000 (March) - HEFCE 99/13
• Recurrent grants for 1999-2000: final allocations (August) - HEFCE 99/49
• Recurrent grants for 2000- 01 (March) - HEFCE 00/12
• Recurrent grants for 2000- 01: final allocations (August) - HEFCE 00/34.

9. Two broad principles underlie the method:

1. That similar activities should be funded at similar rates, with variations from these based on previously determined factors.
2. That institutions should bid for additional student numbers.

10. We calculate a standard level of teaching resource for each institution, based on its profile of students. This covers both our grant and tuition fees. Students, expressed as FTEs, are weighted according to their membership of one of four price groups, which reflect the relative costs of provision in different subjects. An initial mapping of cost centres and superclass II codes to price groups is given in Table 1. The psychology and media studies cost centres were split between price groups. These splits are shown in Tables 2 and 3. For FECs only, provision initially recorded in price group B has been split between price groups B and C; this split is shown in Table 4. These tables are to be found at the end of Annex A.

11. Further weights, or premiums, are applied for part-time students, for full-time undergraduate mature students, and students on long courses. For detailed definitions of part-time, long courses and price groups see HEFCE 99/57 ‘Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1999-2000 (HESES99)’ and HEFCE 99/58 ‘Higher Education in Further Education: Student Survey 1999-2000 (HEIFES99)’. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) student record and the FEFC ISR were used to calculate the proportion of full-time undergraduates that were mature (25 or over) on entry.

12. A number of institutional factors are also reflected through weights applied to student numbers. These are to recognise: the additional costs of provision in London; differences between the Universities and the Teachers Superannuation Schemes (USS and TSS); and the extra costs of some specialist institutions, old and historic buildings, and small institutions. Eligible FECs receive only the part-time, mature and long courses student premiums and the London institutional premium. A list of institutions receiving the London premium is given in Table 5.

13. Details of both the student and institutional premiums are given in Annex A.

14. For each institution we compare the calculated level of standard resource with the actual level of our funding and an assumed income from student fees (assumed resource). Where the difference from the standard resource is no more than 5 per cent, our core funding will roll forward from one year to the next, and this will continue so long as institutions remain within that ±5 per cent tolerance band. For other institutions, we are adjusting grant or student numbers so that they move within the tolerance band.

15. All institutions receive funds for widening participation for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, irrespective of their relative position with respect to the tolerance bands. These additional funds, for full-time students, were shown as a separate column in the ‘Recurrent grants for 2000-01’ report and are not included in this report. Similar funds for the widening participation of part-time students and for disability are not included.

Teaching grant 1999-2000

16. The table below shows the relationship between the 1998-99 adjusted baseline teaching grant published in last year’s report (HEFCE 99/53) and the 1999-2000 adjusted baseline teaching grant.

Development of the 1999-2000 grant for teaching

Distribution of students and resources

17. Chart 1 shows the distribution of standard resources across the four price groups. It also shows the change in this distribution since the previous year. There has been a small amount of movement into price group C. Charts 2 and 3 show the distribution of student FTEs across the price groups by level and mode of study. Although there are more students in price group D, its total standard resource is below that of price group B, reflecting its lower unit price.

18. The tables below show the distributions of student FTEs across price groups, mode and level for HEIs and FECs. There are no postgraduate research (PGR) and few postgraduate taught (PGT) students at FECs. A greater proportion of students at FECs are part-time. A study of the costs of teaching science and engineering in FECs resulted in some students previously funded in price group C now being funded in price group B. All of these students are returned to HEIFES in price group B. Last year all students returned by FECs in price group B were shown in price group B. This year such students are shown according to the price group at which they are funded. As a result there has been a large reduction in FEC students shown in price group B between 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

Key:
FTS Full time and sandwich, sandwich year-out counted as 0.5 FTE
PT Part-time
UG Undergraduate
PGT Postgraduate taught
PGR Postgraduate research

19. Charts 4, 5 and 6 show the differences between assumed resource and standard resource for each institution expressed as a percentage of standard resource. Each bar represents an institution. The specialist institutions and the FECs are shown separately from the universities and general HE colleges because their variation is greater. Few of the universities and general HE colleges are still outside the + or - 5% tolerance band. Some of the specialist institutions are below the –5% band; this is a result of additional specialist premiums awarded for the 2000-01 academic year being included in the standard resource calculation in this report. The distribution of the differences for FECs is very wide, which is largely due to the small numbers of HE students in many FECs.

20. The table below shows the average standard resource (per student FTE) for each price group, and the base price allocated to that group in 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

A full-time student who does not attract any premiums, in an institution that does not attract any premiums, will be funded at the base price.

*The base price in 1999-2000 is not the same as that given in last year’s report in this series (HEFCE 99/53). This is because:

1. The 1999-2000 base price in HEFCE 99/53 was based on student data from HESES collected in December 1998 rather than December 1999.
2. The base price given here reflects changes to the funding method and fee assumptions that have occurred since HEFCE 99/53 was published.

21. The unit of standard resource is the total standard resource divided by the total adjusted student FTEs. This is calculated for each price group within the HEIs and the FECs. The premiums are included in the unit of standard resource. The effect of the premiums that are restricted to HEIs can be seen by comparing the HEI unit of standard resource in price group D with that of the FECs.

22. The data on student numbers in 1999-2000, details of the premiums awarded to each institution, and a comparison of resources are given in Annex B.

Annex A

Details of the premiums

1. The student premium weights used in the funding method are as follows:

1. 25 per cent of base price for home and EC funded students on long courses in price groups B, C and D.
2. 5 per cent of unweighted FTEs for home and EC funded part-time students.
3. 5 per cent of unweighted FTEs for full-time, home and EC fundable mature students, defined as 25 or over at the start of their course. This is given irrespective of year of programme of study. This premium is currently restricted to HEIs.

2. The price group weighting is taken into account in the long course premium but not in the part-time or mature student premiums, which are 5 per cent of the group D price. Clinical courses are assumed to be long, and this is reflected in the price group weightings rather than by giving the long course premiums to all price group A students. For this reason the data on course length in price group A are not published.

3. The institutional premiums used are:

1. 2 per cent to institutions contributing to the USS. This premium is restricted to HEIs.
2. 8 per cent for institutions in inner London and 5 per cent for those in outer London (see Table 3).
3. Premium for specialist institutions, which are described in the report on ‘Funding of specialist institutions’ (HEFCE 98/10). Changes to funding premiums for performing arts colleges were announced in HEFCE 99/41. This premium is restricted to HEIs.
4. Small institutions premium, announced in the electronic publication EP 09/98. This premium is restricted to HEIs.
5. Premium for institutions with old and historic buildings (HEFCE 98/72). This premium is restricted to HEIs.

Download

• Tables 1-5
  [ Excel 59K | Zipped Excel 15K ]

Annex B

• Student FTEs
  [ Excel 262K | Zipped Excel 81K ]
• Premiums
  [ Excel 224K | Zipped Excel 82K ]
• Resource comparisons
  [ Excel 139K | Zipped Excel 54K ]