1. Financing the Students’ Future - FiSt FinSt General Report George-Konstantinos Charonis Consultations Seminar, November 2011 Liverpool, UK Ref. No. 510583-LLP-1-2010-1-BE-ERASMUS-EMHE

2. Overview Trends, challenges and responses ▫Performance based funding Stakeholder views ▫Business Europe ▫EI/ETUCE ▫ESU ▫EUA Where next?

3. Trends & challenges Key: Massification Commodification Insufficient student support Cuts to public funding Increased cost-sharing

4. Trends & challenges Other: Political and other tensions Clashing policy directions Education as a national competence, but increasing EU competence Focus on specific ‘strategic’ subjects Expected increase in jobs requiring highly skilled labour force Challenges to universities

5. Trends & challenges Current popular funding allocation mechanisms Input-based Negotiated Purpose-specific Performance-based A mix of these is often observed

6. Trends & challenges Performance Based Funding Benefits: Linking government objectives with HE funding Rewarding HEIs to achieve specific goals Considerations: Cannot be the only tool to influence the structure and performance of HEIs Shifts focus of HEI activity to achieve particular results, disregarding other important goals Requires further analysis

7. Responses Universities seeking diversified income streams, further diversification expected EU level: Modernisation Agenda for HE (Europe 2020 targets ….

8. Stakeholders: Business Europe HE as a national competency Performance based funding is important, needs to fulfill specific roles Need to make the case for business to invest HE and research: a public good and responsibility, but also private benefits ▫Moderate contribution is OK

9. Stakeholders: EI/ETUCE Sustainable and sufficient public funding is key Cuts to HE – negative impact on student experience Fees replacing public funds – the most disadvantaged are most negatively affected Additional funding sources not necessarily sustainable in the long term Private funding to impact academic freedom, if it becomes dominant funding source Fairest and simplest way: progressive taxation

10. Stakeholders: ESU Design of funding models based on the wrong questions ▫Need to consider desired quality and outcomes Funding mechanism has impact on student choice Private investment can impact academic freedom Funding models do not reflect aspiration of true student centred learning

11. Stakeholders: EUA Diversified income streams a key funding source Considerations for what authorities and universities can do Internal and external efficiency important Need to look at overall institutional missions, not individual aspects singled out Differing institutional missions and targets – need mission specific funding models

12. Where next? HE as a public good and responsibility ▫Only a public good? Funding models unfit for purpose ▫Identify intended quality and outcomes – how and from what perspective? ▫Different institutional missions – link between funding incentives and missions? How do we accommodate clashing policy directions? Education as an EU competency: what does this mean for students and ESU?