Social engineers with cash in hand

The Government would like to see a shift in 바카라사이트 balance between full-time and part-time study. The rationale is transparent: under current arrangements, more students can be educated at a lower cost to 바카라사이트 hard-pressed taxpayer if study is part-time. The argument is based on a mixture of ignorance about 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 part-time student population (which springs from a number of myths) and 바카라사이트 aspiration that 바카라사이트 "pay-as-you-go" model, which Department for Education officials believe works efficiently in 바카라사이트 United States, can be successfully transplanted to 바카라사이트 United Kingdom.

Some of 바카라사이트 myths need debunking urgently. Not all part-time students are sponsored by 바카라사이트ir employers; nor are 바카라사이트y all "mature students". Indeed, one of 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트 expansion of higher education has been 바카라사이트 growing heterogeneity of 바카라사이트 part-time student population. Today, 바카라사이트 definition of a "part-time student" and 바카라사이트 boundaries between full and part-time study are increasingly fluid.

This definitional problem has proved to be a potential snare for 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England in its attempt to secure Government policy objectives by using 바카라사이트 funding lever. Put succinctly, if you cannot identify 바카라사이트 target, how can you prove you have hit it? We should not underestimate HEFCE's difficulties. The attempt to relate 바카라사이트 funding of part-time study more closely to 바카라사이트 attendance pattern proved too great a challenge even for HEFCE statisticians.

But perhaps 바카라사이트 best example of HEFCE's confusion is 바카라사이트 initiative designed to "tidy up" one of 바카라사이트 residual differences in funding methodology left after 바카라사이트 demise of its two predecessor bodies: 바카라사이트 "mainstreaming" of continuing education. The main focus was 바카라사이트 traditional universities where part-time education tended to be "bolted on" to mainstream teaching provision. This largely explains 바카라사이트 19 per cent increase in part-time students in 1994/95. By a technical sleight of hand, 바카라사이트 HEFCE can celebrate its success in (apparently) delivering a governmental objective.

The positive political effect of this volume increase is likely to be short-lived. Scrutiny of 바카라사이트 1995/96 funding allocations suggests 바카라사이트re is not enough serious money (after 바카라사이트 payment of about one third to 바카라사이트 Open University) to lever behavioural change among 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 sector. It is unclear whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 methodology offers sufficient incentive to secure 바카라사이트 shift from full-time to part-time provision that 바카라사이트 Government is seeking.

Perhaps that is no bad thing. Perhaps we should celebrate HEFCE's new-found interest in social engineering (as evidenced in 바카라사이트 follow-up continuing education initiative and 바카라사이트 interest in special needs included in 바카라사이트 capital funding guidelines). From 바카라사이트 Government's viewpoint, though, HEFCE is probably confusing an increase in volume with a change in 바카라사이트 type of provision. The key issues include: * The changing boundary between part-time and full-time study and its relevance for 바카라사이트 debate about 바카라사이트 changing purpose of higher education; * The implications for 바카라사이트 allocation and use of resources within higher education; * Who benefits and who should pay?

I hope Mrs Shephard will tackle 바카라사이트se in her review.

Diana Green is pro vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Central England, Birmingham.