Plans to overhaul Oxford’s wealth redistribution mechanism have faced criticism this week as the first stage of discussions draws to a close.oday is the deadline for individual colleges to voice reservations about proposals for the College Contribution Scheme (CCF) – a system for equalising the wealth gap between Oxford colleges – that were first announced in 2005. Deliberations are set to be taken to the Conference of Colleges in the coming weeks.
Some figures have voiced fears over the fairness of the scheme, and one College Warden has said he does not believe the plans will result in any action.OUSU President Martin McCluskey has expressed concern that new constraints placed on the allocation of funding could restrict poorer colleges, preventing them from diverting money to where it is most needed.
The proposed changes would mean that poorer colleges have to apply for money from the Fund in one of five categories, such as library expenditure and housing allowances, in an attempt to make the scheme more accountable, rather than just a single grant. McCluskey said, “Even if the committee accepted that a new category should be included, it would take a year for the change to come into effect and would delay a college’s ability to apply for funding in that area,” he explained.
“The idea behind such a system is sound in theory – they see it as ensuring that all colleges can apply by the same criteria – but it maybe isn’t so good in practice,” he added.Reforms to the CCF, which redistributes wealth from richer to poorer colleges, are intended to increase its accountability by allowing more control over cash allocation. There are also plans to to provide a ‘boost’ to the Fund with an extra £11 million to be injected by the University into the ailing scheme.But Alan Ryan, Warden of New College, was sceptical about any long-term increase in contributions made by richer colleges, and said that he was uncertain that the reforms would even go ahead.
He said, “Having doubled it for 5 years, the colleges that contribute most – St John’s, All Souls, Christ Church, Merton, Nuffield – would be eager to have a proposal that had a time limit for stopping contributions or [to] go back to the old rates, which were not too harsh.” “I think the end of the period of consultation will not result in anything,” Ryan concluded.Sir Derek Morris, Provost of Oriel College and Chair of the Colleges Contributions Committee, author of the report, denied that the planned reforms would force applicant colleges to comply to their donors’ wishes. He said, “The Committee cannot dictate how a recipient college should act; but, over time, grants will be dependant on how efficiently Colleges utilise their resources.”Sir Morris said that the Fund’s purpose was not to bail out less wealthy colleges. “The CCF is not an emergency fund, it is designed to build up the long term ability of all colleges to provide the academic infrastructure that’s required,” he said.om Lowe, former JCR President of Hertford and proponent of the college contributions reform motion in OUSU last year, said that any redistribution of funds would be cancelled out by the introduction of the new Joint Resource Allocation Mechanism (JRAM). JRAM is set to hugely benefit richer colleges such as St. John’s and Christ Church, while cutting funding to smaller colleges such as Pembroke and Keble.“The University’s interest in increasing poor colleges’ endowments is very welcome,” Lowe said, “However, if the new Joint Resource Allocation Mechanism proposal comes into effect, would the University not simply be giving back some of the money it’s already planning to take away?” St. John’s, Oxford’s richest college, has assets of over quarter of a billion pounds, over twenty times that of Mansfield, the undergraduate college with the fewest assets.by James Stafford
Renewed doubts over college funding reform
