1. UUK update on student number controls Jovan Luzajic Senior policy and data analyst Universities UK

2. Outline 1.Student number controls in England for 2012-13 2.Current understanding of outcomes for 2012-13 3.Thoughts on proposals for SNCs in 2013-14 and 2014-15

3. Student number controls in 2012-13

4. UUK position Need for greater dynamism in SNCs as consequence of funding reforms, but recognise that SNCs still play a role in avoiding unplanned increases in the student support budget Changes to SNCs in 2013-14 should ensure that institutional autonomy is upheld and supported Potential impact on wider social policy goals, including increasing social mobility, and provision of skills in SIVS for example Tight timescales for introduction of changes represent exceptional challenges for institutions in effective implementation of proposals

5. UUK position Concerns regarding reduction in availability of overall university places due to core and margin policy. Further changes should be based on assessment of outcomes and impact of factors such as diversity of the sector

6. Impact of SNC proposals on HEIs in 2012-13

13. Assessment of 2012-13 Impact of change in deferral behaviour on UK/EU acceptances to English HEIs Acceptances within the student number control arrangements decreased by 48,500 for entry in 2012. More 18 year olds entering through preferred choice Greater concentration of offers No real change in participation of disadvantaged groups No significant sensitivity to price

14. Outcomes of 2012-13: AAB+ A level achievements at AAB or above: students in England aged 16 to 18, 2010-11 and 2011-12 Entry rates for English 18 year old population by entry qualification group 79,500 AAB+ entrants in 2012-13 Two-year average for overall AAB+ acceptances broadly in line with historic trends, and close to the 85,000 projected by HEFCE for 2012–13. Decrease in proportion of AAB+ students with A-levels (66.2% to 64.9% in 2012).

15. Outcomes for 2012-13: Core and margin Numbers of unfilled margin places in 2012-13 44% of margin places at HEIs unfilled compared to 27% at FECs Not clear however what impact offsetting of over-recruitment in previous years is Roughly 95% of over- recruitment in 2011-12 was at HEIs

16. Outcomes of 2012-13

17. Outcomes for 2012-13 Combination of factors lead to overall drop in those entering in 2012-13: Changes in the behaviour of those applying in relation to deferral of entry Restrictive nature of student number controls on recruitment strategies of some institutions Institutions concentrating offers on smaller group of students A smaller pool of 18-year olds eligible to apply to university, due to demographic change Changes in the behaviour of mature students, greater decreases seen in acceptances for this group

18. SNC policy 2013-14 Move in high grades threshold to ABB+ and equivalent qualifications HEFCE to use central estimate for assessing ABB+ numbers, previous estimates of 120,000 ABB+ students in 2013-14. Due to atypical nature of recruitment in 2011-12 and 2012-13, HEFCE will use 2010-11 to determine ABB+ population. Cambridge Pre U and Access to HE qualifications added to exemptions list Students topping up to an honours degree from a FT FD or HND also included in exemptions list

19. SNC policy 2013-14 Introduction of flexibility of +3% of total recruitment of HEFCE funded students in 2012-13 Based on 2010-11 data represents additional 10,000 extra places, though likely to be lower for 2013-14 due to lower recruitment in 2012-13 Applies to all institutions including specialist HEIs which have opted out of ABB+ and margin policy in 2013-14 Margin of 5,000 places, Additional places provided by government Provisional allocations suggest that as in 2012-13 just under half of these places will go to HEIs

20. SNC policy 2013-14 Penalties for over-recruitment above +3% flexibility threshold should be assumed to be similar to levels for 2012-13 For institutions charging fees net of waivers of £6,000 or less  £5,000 For institutions charging fees net of waivers of more than £6,000  £1,000 below average fee net of waivers Overall should be considered an over-allocation of numbers against government plans Will be kept under review, not clear if some of the proposals may be withdrawn after 2013-14 if demand picks up Should address some of the concerns from 2012-13 and help towards strategic aims such as widening participation

21. SNC policy 2014-15 Further liberalisation of student places in 2014-15 Flexibility to be linked to institutional recruitment patterns in 2013-14 -Those institutions increasing numbers in 2013-14 will be offered greater flexibility for growth in 2014-15 No indication either way on whether there will further movement of grade threshold (e.g. BBB) Temporary nature of these proposals due to lower level of demand in 2012-13

22. UUK thoughts on future changes to SNCs Concerns regarding incomplete understanding of impact of current reforms Difficulties in moving the high grade threshold further due to greater range of equivalent qualifications, and latent unrealised demand (e.g. from BTEC students) Overall number of places must be maintained going forward. Any underspend on student support should in the short term, be used to: –relax student number controls –Reduce penalties for over-recruitment –Remove or reduce the impact of margin exercises Not clear where places for increased flexibility would come from if demand returns or increases

23. Next steps UUK monitoring report on impact of wider reforms in 2012-13, to be published in spring 2013 Continued monitoring of the 2013 cycle Focus on communicating student finance system to part time and mature students and review of part time and mature provision HEFCE consultation in spring 2013 on implementation of controls for 2014-15

24. Your thoughts Opportunity to feed into UUK response to upcoming consultation on student number controls for 2014-15 HEFCE guidance (from HEFCE circular 32/2012) ‘….The exemptions list in no way provides an exhaustive assessment of students’ prior attainment. We would not expect institutions to use this list to inform decisions about the quality of students’ qualifications, the admission of individual applicants, or students’ eligibility for institutions’ own scholarship, bursary or fee waiver schemes. The list is not intended to influence the determination of individual applicants’ suitability for admission, where the autonomy of institutions is always paramount.’ Are the proposals for 2013-14 adequate in addressing difficulties institutions faced in 2012-13 recruitment cycle What could we propose for 2014-15 that would help?

25. Questions and comments Jovan Luzajic jovan.luzajic@universitiesuk.ac.uk