Report calls for fairer funding

13th October 1995 at 01:00
Urban colleges are being penalised by an unfair funding regime which takes little account of poverty, according to a new study.

A paper by managers at Lewisham College in south London claims further education will soon begin to suffer unless the Further Education Funding Council treats urban colleges differently from those in the shires.

The discussion document - sent to MPs, the FEFC and other principals - calls for weighting to be built into the current system to create a level playing field.

The authors of the report "Lewisham not Lewes - Profligate Colleges or Penalised Students" say that comparing a college which serves Britain's worst youth unemployment area with its wealthier West Sussex counterpart makes no sense.

The FEFC's funding formula, they suggest, concentrates mainly on the relative costs of the curriculum in different locations and pays only a little attention to "external influences".

Colleges in poorer areas are hit hardest because the FEFC cash they gain in compensation for remitting fees of poorer students is less than the tuition fees charged by colleges in wealthier areas. Another problem is the failure of the funding formula to take into account differences in study time needed for courses according to students' previous educational achievements.

A further difficulty is the link between funding and the retention of students those struggling financially are less likely to stay, so reducing their college's income.

The Lewisham paper proposes a new weighting mechanism and banding system to reflect relative poverty levels. To avoid giving rewards for inefficiencies and poor service at high-cost colleges, institutions would only qualify if they could demonstrate high standards and inspection grades.

Lewisham principal Ruth Silver said changes were needed to avoid "compounding social disadvantage" of the sort experienced by the college's own students.

An FEFC spokeswoman said one of its committees twice considered the weighting issue and concluded there was no evidence to support the case for differential funding.

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now