The Office for Students is running a consultation which closed on the 6 May 2021 relating to the recurrent funding distribution for 2021/22. The consultation includes a Government-mandated policy to increase funding to ‘high-value’ courses like science, engineering and medicine and to reduce by 50% the funding to ‘high cost but lower value’ courses, including Library and Information Science.

CILIP strongly opposes reducing the subsidy for LIS courses as well as the general principle that there is an either/or choice to be made between supporting the arts and supporting the sciences. We believe that the proposed measures will significantly damage our ability to attract diverse talent into the profession, and will have a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics.

You can read our full response to the consultation below. The key points in the consultation which we have addressed are:

• Pitting sciences versus arts is bad economics – a strong economy is a creative economy and a competitive industrial base depends on the flow of ideas and creativity


• ‘Librarianship’ has been mis-categorised by Learn Direct as part of media studies when in fact most LIS courses sit alongside Computer Science, Technology and Business


• Reducing subsidy for LIS courses will significantly damage our ability to attract diverse tablent into the profession, and will have a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics

Consultation response

1. Introduction

1.1 CILIP is the professional association representing people working in information and knowledge management, data science and libraries. We have operated since 1898 under Royal Charter and represent a significant proportion of librarians and information professionals in the Higher Education sector.

1.2 Our purpose is to support, unite and advocate for all librarians and information professionals. Our vision is of a professional community dedicated to changing lives through access to quality information.

1.3 We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation on recurrent funding arrangements in Higher Education by the Office for Students (OfS).

1.4 We are, however, concerned that since the parameters of the outcome are effectively set by HM Government’s Statutory Guidance letter, this significantly reduces the scope of the potential outcomes, and hence the efficacy of this consultation process.

1.5 We would be pleased to schedule a call with representatives of the OfS to discuss any of the matters raised in this response.

2. Overall commentary

2.1 We are extremely concerned that the consultation document proposes what amounts to a 50% cut in subsidy for a broad range of creative media and arts courses, including specifically the teaching of Librarianship

2.2 We are of the view that the proposals are drawn from a simplistic viewpoint which values courses that are directly connected to economic and industrial activity while systematically devaluing those that are less directly so.

2.3 In our view, a successful economy and a growing industrial base depend on a broad and inclusive education and a thriving creative, media and arts sectors. We believe that the ‘either/or’ approach proposed fundamentally misses the point that a thriving economy is a creative economy.

2.4 More specifically, however, we would contest the inclusion of librarianship in the proposed C1.2 category. It is not commonly a ‘high cost’ course of instruction and the only rationale we can see for its inclusion here is that it has been miscategorised under ‘Media Studies’ in the Learn Direct Class System Code.

2.5 We note that Librarianship (commonly ‘Library and Information Science’) is in most cases included alongside other information-based teaching and learning as part of a IT/Computer Sciences and related disciplines.

2.6 The teaching of Library and Information Science requires very little specialist equipment, the costs of instruction are low and support can be obtained from existing facilities (University libraries).

2.7 We would therefore strongly argue that the Office for Students should reconsider the mis-classification of Librarianship as a ‘high cost’ course which sits alongside the Creative Arts and Media and instead recognise it as a lower-cost course which sits alongside Computer Sciences and Technology.

3. Responses to individual questions

3.1 We have only responded to the questions that pertain directly to the classification of Librarianship within the category C1.2. Please see our responses below:

Question	Response
Question 1: To what extent do you agree with the proposal to distribute a greater proportion of OfS recurrent grant through the main high-cost subject funding method?	In general, we agree with the principle that an increase in funding is necessary to address the increase in student numbers and also to maintain the flow of skills into industry and the economy. However, we are strongly of the view that the approach proposed by the Government is based on an artificially binary either/or choice between science, engineering and medicine on the one hand and creative media and the arts on the other. In fact, successful economies are creative economies and a competitive industrial base depends on the flow of creative ideas and methods. By setting these disciplines up in opposition to one another, the net effect is likely to be damaging to both.
Question 2: To what extent do you agree with the proposal to split price group C1 in order to implement a reduction of 50 per cent to the high-cost subject funding allocated to subjects in the performing arts; creative arts; media studies and archaeology?	We strongly disagree with this proposal. As noted above, it sets ‘industrial’ subjects in false opposition with creative media and the arts. We see nothing in the Government’s position that justifies a 50% reduction in investment in these subjects. If there is to be increased investment in so-called ‘high value’ subjects, then it ought to be achieved through a greater increase in the total budget, not by implementing widespread and damaging cuts to key creative courses.
Question 3: Notwithstanding your answer to question 2, if we were to split price group C1 as proposed, to what extent do you agree with our approach to implementing this?	We strongly disagree with the inclusion of ‘Librarianship’ in the C1 or C1.2 categories. It seems to have happened due to a mis-classification in the Learn Direct subject headings, and we strongly urge OfS to correct this before the proposals are implemented . Library and Information Science most commonly sits in HEI’s alongside Computer Sciences and Technology and it is increasingly to be found alongside instruction in Business and Administration. When CILIP supported the registration of the new Level 3 Library, Archive and Information Services Apprenticeship standard in 2020, the Institute for Apprentices assigned it under 'Business and Administration'. We believe that Librarianship has been mis-categorised in error and should not be included in the schedule of C1 or C1.2 courses. Moreover, having consulted with learning providers in LIS, they confirm that instruction is extremely low-cost relative to other academic disciplines, requiring very little in terms of specialist equipment or premises. On this basis, therefore, we believe that the inclusion of Librarianship in the proposed reductions is an error arising from a mis-classification by Learn Direct, and one which ought not to be compounded by the Recurrent Funding model.
Question 13: Do you have any comments about any unintended consequences of these proposals, for example, for particular types of provider or for particular types of student	The proposals will, in our view, be extremely damaging to our long-term economic recovery and industrial growth. A strong and innovative industry depends on productivity and innovation. Both of these depend on working smarter, which means helping industry to unlock the power of information, knowledge and data. If implemented, the proposed cuts to Library and Information Science courses would significantly impair the capabilities of the information workforce, and in turn the businesses that depend on their skills
Question 14: Do you have any comments about the potential impact of these proposals on individuals on the basis of their protected characteristics?	CILIP has been working hard with employers and learning providers to diversify the ‘supply chain’ of talent into our profession. This depends in part on affordable access to quality instruction in Library and Information Science (LIS). The proposals, if implemented, will significantly reduce the provision of teaching and learning, in turn providing fewer options for people from diverse backgrounds to enter our profession. In the long-term the effect of the proposals will be to put up barriers to our profession precisely when we are hoping to diminish or remove them.
Question 16: Do you have any other comments on the proposals in this document?	As noted above, we believe that the inclusion of ‘Librarianship’ in the proposed C1.2 category is incorrect, and would strong urge OfS to correct this before the proposals are implemented. Moreover, we appreciate that the consultation has to be framed in the context of the Government’s statutory letter, but we are extremely concerned both at the logic driving the division between sciences and arts and at the refusal to address increased demand by raising the overall funding threshold. We therefor encourage OfS to make representation to the Government to point out that the proposals will cause significant damage while also undermining precisely the objective of strengthening our economic and industrial capability.

CILIP response submitted to the Office for Students Consultation on Recurrent Funding for 2021-22 (pdf).