HIGHER EDUCATION DATA WORKSHOP 27 June 2006
Higher Education Data Workshop Outline • Changes to data use and requirements • Timetable • Data quality analysis • HESA/EYM comparisons • Audit • Redistribution • Comparative funding • WAG presentations
Changes to Data Use and Requirements - Welsh medium modules – Welsh medium costs study – Seminar in September – Discussion of data issues
Changes to Data Use and Requirements – Widening Access Premium • Claritas Super Profiles out of date • New method needed to determine low affluence
Changes to Data Use and Requirements – HESA student record review • Second consultation in March 2006 • Responses from seven Welsh HEIs • New structure and fields introduced for 2007/08 • Some changes to module fields
Changes to Data Use and Requirements – Cell weights • Unit of funding now used instead of unit of resource • Relativities between ASCs have changed • New cell weights for calculation of 2007/08 funding
2006/07 Timetable 27 June Workshop for institutions 2 August EYM return date 21 August EYM verifications sent out 31 August Return date for redistribution exercise 7 September EYM verifications return date Sept/October Audit of data Mid September Data submitted to HESA Mid Sept/Oct HESA data quality checking Mid October HESES survey issued Mid November HESES return date
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA Total number of assumed completed credit values extracted from HESA compared to verified EYM data In 2003/04 HESA 4% lower than EYM data In 2004/05 HESA 2% higher than EYM data
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA % difference (HESA to EYM) by institution for total assumed completed credit values range from: FT – 4% to +9% (sector +0.3%) SW -17% to +75% (sector +0.1%) (small numbers) PT -11% to +60% (sector +11%) Total -7% to +7% (sector +2%)
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA % difference (HESA to EYM) for total assumed completed registrations: FT +0.6% SW -10% (small numbers) PT -5% Total -2%
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA Observations: Spread of credits across ASCs differ. Higher number of regs/creds in ASC11b at EYM than HESA. Perhaps due to Y000 JACS coding? Subjects coded with wrong JACSCODES. Students recorded with stuload=0 but were not NSAY and undertook modules during year. Column 1/ column 2 differences.
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA Observations (2): Some students not coded correctly as full-time sandwich year out on HESA. Significantly higher number of PGT credits at HESA than EYM. Higher number of undergraduate non-degree credit values on HESA than EYM. Some instances of fundcode seem to have been coded wrong.
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA Observations (3): Franchised Out Some values of tinst1 wrongly coded? Fundable/non-fundable students. Some individual college information incorrectly recorded.
COMPARISONS BETWEEN HESA AND EYM DATA In conclusion: HEFCW will continue to make comparisons of the HESA data against EYM returns with a view to reviewing the data collected at EYM. If anyone has any comments on the comparisons or would like us to look at specific elements of their data in more detail please email hestats@hefcw.ac.uk
HESA Data Quality Analysis 1 • Fields regularly used in analysis, funding and monitoring • Looked at missing values, inconsistencies and changes between years • Individual institution level and sector level
HESA Data Quality Analysis 2 • Table 1 – Postcodes – Proportion of missing/invalid postcodes improved from 2003/04 (3% to 1%) – Still some large proportions invalid/missing at some institutions for certain modes/levels • Table 2 – Ethnicity – Used in monitoring – Still some large proportions of unknowns but small overall (3%)
HESA Data quality analysis 3 • Table 3 – Welsh subject provision – Q500 used instead of Q560, Q561 – Difficult to analyse Welsh provision • Table 4 – Proportion taught through Welsh – Some small proportions
HESA Data quality analysis 4 • Table 5 – Non-standard academic years – Academic years that are potentially non-standard coded as standard (e.g. courses starting in January 2005, with expected length of year greater than 40 weeks) • Table 6 – Average FTE/credit values per enrolment
HESA Data quality analysis 5 • Table 7 – Data linked by HUSID/instance to 2003/04 – Some differences between birth date and ethnicity – Greater numbers have different commencement date, domicile and/or postcode • Table 8 – Data linked by HEFCE linking method to 2003/04 – Linked using birth date, name etc as well as HUSID – Overall 5% of HUSIDs differ between the two years
HESA Data quality analysis 6 • Table 9 – Students starting in 2004/05 – Some also present in 2003/04 with same instance (1% overall) – Proportions at individual institutions vary from 0% to 5% overall, some large proportions for certain mode/level combinations
Audit 1 • Process for this year the same as last year • Process has been reviewed internally – Letter to Heads of Institutions going out after this workshop detailing proposals
Audit 2 • Proposals include: – Reliance placed on institutions’ internal audit reports – External audit required where an increased risk of error has been identified – External audit required at least once every five years regardless of risks identified
REDISTRIBUTION • Circular issued: 07/06/06 • Response deadline: 31/08/06 • Changes to rules: None But……. • Remember paragraph 8
Institution Concerns • Partial Completions
THE FUNDING GAP Frances Good Head of Statistics and Information Services HEFCW www.hefcw.ac.uk/Finance_and_Assurance/statistical_data
OVERVIEW • The purpose of the analysis • The methods used • The main findings • Data issues
THE PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS • The WAG asked HEFCW to provide a comparison of funding in Wales with the rest of the UK • The analysis needed to take into account differences in types of HEI and subject mix • Historical as well as current figures were requested • To be repeated this summer
APPROACH • Two separate methods • Analysis uses: 1. Published accounts from funding councils + HESES or EYM fundable enrolments 2. Data from HESA • Both used to calculate Grant per Fundable FTE
1. TOP-DOWN APPROACH Uses: • Funding allocated in each country from published accounts with adjustments for Access funds, SRIF and TDA funding; converted to academic year • Enrolment data from HESES (England) or final end of year figures (Wales and Scotland)
2. BOTTOM-UP APPROACH Uses: • Funding received by each institution as recorded in HESA Finance Record • Teaching grant, grant + fees and total income also taken from HESA Finance Record • Fundable FTEs taken from HESA Student Record
DRAWBACKS OF BOTTOM- UP APPROACH • Excludes HE in FEIs and top-sliced grant • Treatment of capital in HEIs’ accounts (shown as release of deferred capital grants) • Inaccurate recording of fundable FTEs in HESA data • Errors in estimates at individual HEI level where data quality is poor
CALCULATION OF THE FUNDING GAP • Funding Gap calculated as: (Funding per Fundable FTE in Wales – Funding per Fundable FTE in England) x Number of Fundable FTEs in Wales • Needed to add around £9m to compensate for ‘deferred capital grant’ to bottom -up estimates
MAIN FINDINGS – TOP DOWN • Welsh HEIs received less grant than English or Scottish HEIs • Initially similar levels in Wales and England (ie 2000/01 and 2001/02) • Gap has become larger since 2002/03 • Funding gap with England is around £26m • Funding gap with Scotland around £75m
COMPARISON OF GRANT-IN- AID PER FUNDABLE FTE 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 HEFCW £4,307 £4,649 £4,687 £4,942 HEFCE £4,334 £4,609 £4,917 £5,296 +TDA SHEFC £5,087 £5,401 £5,643 £5,946
MAIN FINDINGS – BOTTOM-UP • Lower grant +fees and overall income in Wales than in England or Scotland • Similar grant for teaching in Wales and England • Funding gap with England in range £16m - £24m
Grant and Income per FTE 2003/04 HE E Grant ant HE E All Grant Al ant All Incom Al ome e per r Teac aching hing and d Fees es per r FTE fundab dable e Grant ant per er per r FTE HE FTE fundab dable e taught ght HE FTE E Wales £4,671 £3,367 £6,028 £9,262 England £4,796 £3,385 £6,345 £10,101 Scotl tlan and £5,919 £4,374 £7,119 £11,595
GROUPS OF HEIs • Low Research (<10% of grant) • Moderate Research (10% - 29% of grant) • High Research (30% - 49% of grant) • Very High Research (50% + of grant) • Conservatoires • Open University
DIFFERENCES IN STRUCTURE OF SECTORS • No Very High Research HEIs in Wales • Fewer Low Research HEIs (45% of FTEs in Wales; 52% England) • More Moderate Research HEIs (34% of FTEs in Wales; 18% England) • Similar High Research HEIs (20% of FTEs in Wales; 19% England) Therefore need to compare within groups
Recommend
More recommend
