1. Joint Information Systems Committee Strategies Conference Focus on Funding Keynote Address by Nigel Brown 7 December 2000

2. Key Contexts Challenge from the Secretary of State Government Expectations Divergence of National Funding Systems within the UK Inadequacy of the Unit of Teaching Resource

3. Funding Review Terms of Reference Stage 1 - to identify the future funding requirements of UK HEIs over the next decade - draw on all available sources of data to undertake a comprehensive review of public and private funding sources and how these are deployed - to assess the extent to which these sources meet the future funding requirement

4. Funding Options Review Terms of Reference (cont.) - cost and model the various funding options including differential fees which might meet the future funding requirements Stage 2 - This will develop criteria against which the strengths and weaknesses of the funding options identified in Stage 1 can be assessed - This assessment will form the basis of policy on the principles for future funding of HE

5. Publicly Planned Funding for HE 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 £1 bn. additional funds across the three years funding for an extra 45,000 places mainly part-time and sub-degree most other additional funding for specific initiatives, including C&IT little or no increase in the core funding per student - 0 to 0.5% per annum

6. C&IT Requirements Re-tooling Teaching and Learning On-line Student Administration Improving Academic and Pastoral Support Scholarship and Research - Empowering the Individual E-University or E-Universities

7. London Economics Option Types 1. Increased Means-tested Fees (differentiated or undifferentiated) 2. Higher Means-tested Fees for Those from the Wealthiest Backgrounds 3. Increased Fees with Income-contingent Loans 4. Income-contingent graduate contributions

8. Increased Means-tested Fees Increased public contribution Increased private contribution from all students who currently pay a contribution -about 50% from 2001- 2002 Differential maximum contribution by subject or possibly by institution

9. The Wealthy Pay More No Necessary Increase in Public Funding Those who Currently Pay No Contribution or Pay a Contribution Less Than the Maximum make no increased Contribution Those who Currently Pay the Maximum Contribution Pay an Increased Contribution on a Means-tested Basis up to the average full cost across all subjects

10. Increased Fees Backed By Income-Contingent Loans Increased Public Funding Up-Front to Meet the Increased Fee Payment Decreased Private Contribution Up-Front Contributions from Graduates on an Income-Contingent Basis Until the Total Real Cost is Repaid: Those Who Never Earn Above the Threshold Never Required to Repay

11. Graduate Contributions No Necessary Increase in Public Funding Unless Graduate Contributions Combined with an Increased Up-Front Fee Income-Contingent Graduate Contributions Either Open-Ended(Graduate Tax) or to Some Pre-Set Maximum Can Be Paid to the Exchequer, to a Separate Higher Education Fund,or to the Graduates Institution

12. The Status Quo Means -tested Contribution to Tuition Costs (The Student Fee) up to a Maximum in the Current Year of £1,050 for Full-Time Undergraduates 44% currently pay no fee: This will rise to 50% from 2001-2002 The Vast Majority of Maintenance Support is Through Income-Contingent Loans

13. Universities UK Options Under Consideration A. Status Quo with Limited Modification B. Increased Fees Backed by Income- Contingent Loans C. Deferred Payment/Graduate Contributions D. Full Cost Fees and Means-Tested Scholarships E. Institutional Opt-Out/Endowment

14. Higher education funding per student in England, 1993 to 2001 (1999 prices)

15. Tertiary educational expenditure from public and private sources as a percentage of GDP (1997)