Some university heads see a hidden agenda in Hefce plans. Jessica Shepherd reports.
Vice-chancellors have expressed concern over proposals to reform the way £4 billion in teaching funds are allocated each year to English institutions.
Some claim that the changes are being ushered in as part of a hidden agenda - despite 14 months of brainstorming, a sector-wide consultation and countless informal meetings.
One vice-chancellor, who did not want to be named, accused the Higher Education Funding Council for England of proposing the changes "while we are all distracted by research funding". He questioned whether the plans would lead universities to "sleepwalk themselves to bankruptcy".
Michael Thorne, vice-chancellor of the University of East London, feared that the plans would move teaching money from new universities to old.
He said: "The basic idea is to move money into the old universities from the new by giving better rates to the subjects located mostly in old universities. This has been done on the rhetorical basis that these cost more, despite scant evidence of underlying costs because places just spend what they are given. Hence, we have measures of spend, not costs, and spend in old universities is twice that in modern universities. The argument is a false one. In short, Hefce has been seduced."
Chris Jenks, vice-chancellor of Brunel University, was also worried about the consequences of the changes. He said his concerns were related to the way Hefce proposed to review the teaching weightings, or how much different subjects cost to teach.
"I believe its approach to be potentially flawed and one that could lead to unintended adverse consequences for a significant number of institutions,"
he said.
Peter Scott, vice-chancellor of Kingston University, lamented that the review was "moving rather slowly", but was quick to allay fears of a "Hefce conspiracy".
He said: "Nothing is being decided 'behind the scenes'. Some elements have been generally approved by the sector. The big issue is whether Hefce should continue to make a 'fee assumption' in calculating grants to institutions now that (undergraduate) fees are, in theory, unregulated.
This has always been done for postgraduate and part-time students."
Sean Mackney, head of learning and teaching at Hefce, stressed that the council had promised institutions that they would not lose out in cash terms when the changes were introduced in 2007-08. He also denied that the changes were brought in on the quiet, pointing to discussions held over 14 months with the sector.
He argued that the proposals to change how much different subjects were allocated for teaching was brought in so that all subjects were equally well funded.
Mr Mackney said: "This is the first time in a number of years that we have publicly looked at the detail of the funding method and some aspects are complicated. Some in the sector are jumpy about certain aspects of this because the changes are within the context of the introduction of variable fees.
"We do believe that we have explained the proposals to the sector and want to make clear that we want to maintain stability in a period of volatility."
HEFCE PROPOSALS LINK CASH POT WITH SUBJECT COST
The Higher Education Funding Council for England plans to continue to link the £4 billion teaching pot to how much different subjects cost.
This would mean an institution would continue to get more cash if, for example, it has more than average numbers of part-time students or if it teaches subjects such as medicine.
Hefce's plans also consider the effect of tuition fees. It proposes to increase how much it assumes universities receive from the fees of full-time undergraduates.
It also plans to change its system of "premiums". These reflect, for example, the additional costs of teaching part-time students or offering foundation degrees. Hefce wants to change the premiums to "allocations", which would mean that universities would see more clearly where Hefce money is going.
The sector was first consulted on the changes last October. A consultation is scheduled for next year to examine how premiums might fit into a system of allocations.