The Government would like to see a shift in the balance between full-time and part-time study. The rationale is transparent: under current arrangements, more students can be educated at a lower cost to the hard-pressed taxpayer if study is part-time. The argument is based on a mixture of ignorance about the nature of the part-time student population (which springs from a number of myths) and the aspiration that the "pay-as-you-go" model, which Department for Education officials believe works efficiently in the United States, can be successfully transplanted to the United Kingdom.

Some of the myths need debunking urgently. Not all part-time students are sponsored by their employers; nor are they all "mature students". Indeed, one of the consequences of the expansion of ÖйúAƬ has been the growing heterogeneity of the part-time student population. Today, the definition of a "part-time student" and the boundaries between full and part-time study are increasingly fluid.

This definitional problem has proved to be a potential snare for the ÖйúAƬ Funding Council for England in its attempt to secure Government policy objectives by using the funding lever. Put succinctly, if you cannot identify the target, how can you prove you have hit it? We should not underestimate HEFCE's difficulties. The attempt to relate the funding of part-time study more closely to the attendance pattern proved too great a challenge even for HEFCE statisticians.

But perhaps the best example of HEFCE's confusion is the initiative designed to "tidy up" one of the residual differences in funding methodology left after the demise of its two predecessor bodies: the "mainstreaming" of continuing education. The main focus was the traditional universities where part-time education tended to be "bolted on" to mainstream teaching provision. This largely explains the 19 per cent increase in part-time students in 1994/95. By a technical sleight of hand, the HEFCE can celebrate its success in (apparently) delivering a governmental objective.

ÖйúAƬ

The positive political effect of this volume increase is likely to be short-lived. Scrutiny of the 1995/96 funding allocations suggests there is not enough serious money (after the payment of about one third to the Open University) to lever behavioural change among the rest of the sector. It is unclear whether the methodology offers sufficient incentive to secure the shift from full-time to part-time provision that the Government is seeking.

Perhaps that is no bad thing. Perhaps we should celebrate HEFCE's new-found interest in social engineering (as evidenced in the follow-up continuing education initiative and the interest in special needs included in the capital funding guidelines). From the Government's viewpoint, though, HEFCE is probably confusing an increase in volume with a change in the type of provision. The key issues include: * The changing boundary between part-time and full-time study and its relevance for the debate about the changing purpose of ÖйúAƬ; * The implications for the allocation and use of resources within ÖйúAƬ; * Who benefits and who should pay?

ÖйúAƬ

I hope Mrs Shephard will tackle these in her review.

Diana Green is pro vice chancellor of the University of Central England, Birmingham.