Huckfield would like to emphasise that this is not an ‘opinion posting’ but is offered as a comprehensive record of the Black Country Partnership for Learning Spring Conference on Friday 25 May 2012. It is based on notes taken throughout the Conference and on speakers’ presentations.

KEITH BATE, PRINCIPAL OF HALESOWEN COLLEGE

Introduction

In his Conference Introduction, Keith Bate, Principal of Halesowen College, welcomed colleagues to a further important Black Country Partnership for Learning Conference. He spoke of the previous Government target of 50% participation in Higher Education, which seemed to have disappeared. Nevertheless, he was sure that current Government’s Higher Education policy changes represented significant opportunities for Further Education Colleges.

PATRICK HIGHTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BCPL

Welcome

Patrick Highton, Executive Director of BCPL, welcomed colleagues to another high quality, low cost BCPL conference. He referred to the previous joint BCPL Further/Higher Education Conference in November 2011, with the outgoing Vice Chancellor of Wolverhampton University’s predicting reduced enrolment following higher student fees. In fact, Wolverhampton’s projected 2012 enrolment had increased by 5%. He hoped that this note of optimism would continue throughout the day.

Since this is offered as a comprehensive and detailed posting, the following links take you directly to the speakers concerned and their presentations.

GORDON MACKENZIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AT DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Gordon spoke about student demand, progress so far in implementing the White Paper’s reforms and information for students and the institutional supply side.

NICK DAVY, HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY MANAGER, ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES

Nick explained his historical perspective for education. This was a time for rethinking policy. We should be asking what kind of HE system we needed and get back to promoting applied and practical knowledge and skills.

JOHN DAVIES, HEAD OF PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT, PEARSON

John explained Pearson’s plans for employer based degrees, some with employers paying fees. Pearson would soon launch degrees in Business and Enterprise and Engineering.

JOHN ELLISON, HEAD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW COLLEGE DURHAM

John explained the process which was followed by New College Durham to gain Foundation Degree Awarding Powers. Despite the time taken, he thought that the process had strengthened the College.

PETER CRISP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF BPP LAW SCHOOL AND ADAM TEMPLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BPP CENTRE, BIRMINGHAM

Peter and Adam gave examples of current private sector provision and explained the operational features of BPP, which were similar to those in the public sector. BPP already had Degree Awarding Powers.

PROFESSOR DAVID GREEN, VICE CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UNIVERSITY OF WORCESTER

David gave examples of the University of Worcester’s participation in the local economy, including a new Library which would serve both the University and the wider public.

PROFESSOR IAN OAKES, UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON AND BLACK COUNTRY LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

Ian outlined skills shortage problems in the Black Country. The new Jaguar LandRover Plant would create 750 jobs. The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership had identified key outcomes and objectives.

LUKE MILLARD, BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY, PAUL CHAPMAN, BCU STUDENTS’ UNION AND KIM HUGHES, DUDLEY COLLEGE STUDENTS’ UNION

Luke and colleagues explained how they had set up a “virtual Students’ Union” to provide an access point for students on various campuses. This also provided a means for FE and HE institutions to communicate with students.

PHILLIP HALLAM, CEO, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL

Philip explained how RDI, with its significant resources for marketing and investment, was able to work in partnership with universities to deliver online and distance learning.

MAIN NOTES ON CONFERENCE SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATIONS BEGIN HERE:

Links have already been provided above to speakers whose presentations now follow.

GORDON MACKENZIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AT DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Gordon made a presentation on “The Changing Policy Framework: the HE White Paper and Beyond”.

Student Demand and Progress on White Paper

He said he would speak on what was known about student demand, what progress had been made in implementing the White Paper’s reforms and information for students and the institutional supply side. The actual impact of fees and other changes would depend on numbers applying, how institutions responded with their fees and the actions of Government. HEFCE now managed overall expenditure and it was hard to predict changes in the system which would unfold over several years.

On the demand side, after last year’s White Paper, there was a need to overcome financial and information barriers. All this was set against a background of the toughest funding review with £3bn to be saved by 2014-2015. A financial package was needed which would not deter lower income students.

High Demand

There was still high demand. In 2009-2010 demand exceeded supply by 50,000. Despite many more students, the wage premium for degrees remained stable. This suggested an increased demand for graduate skills. OECD had reported that the long term growth rate was influenced by higher skills.

Gordon referred to profound aspirational and attitudinal change taking place in society. David Willetts as Higher Education Minister frequently quoted the Millennium Survey of mothers, with 97% expecting their child going to university.

Despite White Paper changes, strong demand for Higher Education continued. March and April 2012 data showed HE applications holding up, with the overall proportion of English school leavers as applicants the second highest on record.

Though application rates from 18 year olds were only down 0.7%, we should not expect continuing increasing numbers with the size of the 18 cohort reducing. Disadvantaged applicants were only down 2% from January 2011, but there was a decline in older people’s applications – 11% for over 24s. Demand outstripped supply and we might still expect around 170,000 failing to secure a place. By September 2012 the Key Information Set on 14,000 undergraduate courses would be publicly available to applicants.

It had already been announced that the student grant package for 2013-2014 would be maintained. While he accepted that the 50% target had not been reached, the Robbins target – that University places should be available to all who qualified for them by attainment and ability – still remained.

Competition

The White Paper introduced competitive pressure through new providers. They were called ‘alternative providers’ since there were no ‘public universities’.  Though there were recent useful studies of the private sector, including from the Higher Education Policy Institute, there was still no comprehensive picture of private HE provision.

There were also information gaps for HE delivery in FE, including lack of knowledge on FE delivery costs and how FE courses were more geographically accessible than HE institutions.  AABs and ABBs had been freed up. In recent bidding, half of Core and Margin bid places were going to FE Colleges. But though under Core and Margin, FE Colleges received 10,354 places and HE received 9,643, this was still tiny compared with overall numbers.

Degree Awarding Powers were in the White Paper, responding to criticisms that those with these powers could guard against access to market.

Further Work

There was still the need for Government to respond to the White Paper and its Regulatory Framework Consultations. These responses would show the Government’s intentions on the Higher Education Bill. The Government needed to finish what had been started. It was not until 2014-2015 that the Student Loan System would reach maturity, covering all students on three year degree courses.

Back to Top

NICK DAVY, HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY MANAGER, ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES

Nick’s presentation was “A Perspective from the Association of Colleges”.

He said that while Gordon’s presentation was an excellent introduction, he also believed that institutions themselves could shape the system. It was not entirely done by BIS and people like Gordon. He wanted to ask a basic question on whether systems derived from medieval enlightenment were still appropriate for mass higher education.

Higher Education was not a market place since volume and to some extent entrance were controlled. Major institutions knew they would not be allowed to fall.

From Elite in Society to Mass Education

Nick explained his historical perspective for education. Plato had been an early wider participation advocate but was still an elitist – a ‘Philosopher King’. The educated were an elite in society.

Humboldt in early nineteenth century Prussia linked scholars and students. But none of this was about skills development. Teaching should be based on a search for truth. He commented that German universities had resisted the EU Bologna process to spread the complementarity of HE qualifications because they simply wanted to teach.

We had moved from elitism to mass education.  Robbins in 1963 wrote about cheaper mass higher education. Today we had reached about 36% participation in HE. There had been a success story around widening participation for those from lower socio economic backgrounds, but he wondered whether we were still putting the tools in place for society to grow. There were still problems with widening participation. The HEFCE site showed differences in backgrounds between newer and established universities. The Russell Group Club showed this problem. Though 7% went to private schools, 50% of them went to Russell Universities. This was a problem from allowing institutions to have too much autonomy. There were also problems with teaching and learning. Less than 9% attending Durham University come from Tyne and Wear.

Rethinking the System

He asked how many civil servants beginning to question costs of 3 year Bachelors’ Degrees.  It was time to rethink what kind of system we wanted and its purpose. It should be about developing higher level skills. Our Higher Education system should not aim to compete with workers in China but should serve a whole diversity of aims. This was an opportunity to rethink aims and processes.

The system needed continuing permeability. There were big gaps between Secondary, Further and Higher Education, each with different teaching systems. We needed to examine the transition from Secondary to Further and Higher. The big break between Secondary and Higher education was an elitist concept.

HEFCE in its “Opportunities and Challenges” publication was a request from the dying days of New Labour. But the new government still wanted it published. But HEFCE was a timid organisation. We should be asking what kind of HE system we needed and get back to promoting applied and practical knowledge and skills. There was not parity of esteem.

HEFCE’s and SFA’s not working together was a structural problem. He was beginning policy work with the Skills Funding Agency, National Apprenticeship Service and HEFCE, which did not talk to each other.

Should we be charging such high fees? More funding should be available for transition and widening participation. There should be more Credit and Transfer Frameworks. We needed many more APL schemes. Non Prescribed Higher Education should be promoted and funded.

He was not opposed to loans. Neither was Association of Colleges. But they were introduced too quickly. Prestigious universities should be pressed harder on widening participation. We needed a more diverse Higher Education system, probably supported by loans and with more achieved by colleges and universities working together.

PANEL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In reply to a question about fees for part time courses, Gordon and Nick agreed that there was not yet much employer awareness about payment of fees for part time courses.

In answer to a question about FE Colleges and Core and Margin bidding, Nick said he was comfortable with a projected smaller increase of 5,000 places in 2013-2014 since some FE colleges would struggle hitting targets for Core and Margin. 5,000 was sensible. With more experience of hitting targets there should be larger increases from 2014.

Back to Top

JOHN DAVIES, HEAD OF PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT, PEARSON

John’s presentation was entitled “Validation and Accreditation Services for Higher Level Provision”.

Pearson Provision

He felt that Higher Education was at an interesting junction.  He felt strongly that much education debate following the Second War represented coming to terms with a mass education system. The promise in the White Paper was that the private sector would come in and reinvigorate the system. It sometimes seemed like warring factions with the private sector at the door.

But private providers were already there. Kaplan was already working with Liverpool and Essex to provide degrees. But there was little of a market in the system. Pearson as a FTSE 100 private provider sought to respond to changes in the landscape. 80% of Pearson publications were for HE. Pearson owned Edexcel. After Higher Nationals, Foundation Degrees had not really expanded numbers in ‘pre degree’ education.

There was ever higher demand from employers and a 25% churn rate among graduate recruits. Pearson would work with employers to provide a more flexible and responsive system.

Surveys showed that universities were not preparing students for the world of work. Universities were scratching at the surface with a growing sense of ‘instrumentalism’ – students’ going on a course to get a job. Pearson’s route would provide progression to jobs. Loans could be repaid as part of employment. An example was graduates leaving Deloitte with their fees paid.

Employer Base for Pearson Degrees

Pearson sought to develop degrees as employer-based, jointly with Royal Holloway College at the University of London. A Business and Enterprise degree would be launched in September 2012. Engineering would be launched in September 2013. Pearson was moving into unknown territory when moving off quota, since funding was uncertain. Pearson would deliver with partner colleges – a sort of enhanced Open University, with campuses in Manchester and London. Pearson needed experience of delivering degrees to gain its own DAP. Pearson could then franchise out provision. The old London External Examination Model, with sitting standard exams, would not work for Pearson. Successful courses involved hands on, face to face tutors in loco parentis. Courses with multiple delivery were not successful. Debt free graduates would be a matter for employers. Pearson would charge £6,500, pricing below traditional courses, and had already spoken with banks. Pearson wanted debt free students but could not compete with the Student Loan Company — which would cause the Government big problems.

For its Engineering Degree Pearson needed workshops, labs and a high level of management. This would build on current HNCs in Construction and Engineering. Mott MacDonald and Rolls Royce were interested. Pearson was interested in designing an engineering degree with case studies. (John’s detailed presentation gives more examples of this at Level 6). All this was a new and emerging market and not in competition with existing provision.

Back to Top

JOHN ELLISON, HEAD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW COLLEGE DURHAM

John’s presentation was entitled “Foundation Degree Awarding Powers for FE Colleges”

Background

John explained that New College Durham had around 2000 (1200 FTE) directly funded Higher Education students. It had one of 12 Schools of Podiatry in the UK and also offered a Social Work degree. There was a mixed national picture for degrees. Some parts of the county faced a big challenge getting young people to enter HE, with some only 23% – including East Durham, with wards like Easington and Seaham, the poorest wards. New College was ‘promiscuous’. It worked with a range of universities for validation – a restless organisation looking for universities with which it was comfortable. A university was a many-faceted institution, which sometimes gave you four different answers to a question.

Bill Rammell had promoted Foundation Degree Awarding Powers (FDAP) when Minister of State for Higher Education. These powers were available from 2008. Following its IQER pilot, New College Durham felt duty bound to pursue this in August 2008. The process showed similar issues for FDAP and TDAP.

He accepted that so far takeup was low. New College Durham and Newcastle College were granted FDAP in July 2011. Four more colleges were currently going through the process, including Blackburn and Grimsby. All this was a process within a dynamic and fluid environment. Though New College felt politically obliged to go through with this, FDAP gave public affirmation and confidence of status as a public education provider. The next step would be TDAP, though Newcastle was probably keener on this. DAP also provided a level of independence, though the College was still working with universities in Level 6 and other provision.

FDAP Process

The upfront cost was £52,000 from QAA and an annual subscription to QAA around £4,000 to £6,000, depending on numbers. It was difficult to work out the cost of whole process. With staff costs for external scrutiny, additional costs for external examiner fees, additional registry functions and all posts, this might even be between £125,000 and £250,000. Costs were probably more than would be expected. Newcastle College now had an Academic Registrar.

Benefits included no more paying validating charges to HE Institutions and more control over the College product. Experience showed that students were more interested in the student experience than in who was the awarding body. Though there was an opportunity to increase student numbers, the whole process was more was about strengthening experience rather than increasing volume. FDAP applicants need four years’ delivery of Level 5 or above and an endorsement from an existing validating body. This was QAA professionalism at its best. The College was looking for capacity and self criticality. FDAP had had now been granted for 6 years. But the College could not franchise.

College management structures needed to change. Though not a research institution, the College needed to show scholarly activity and that there was profit from this scholarly activity. The process had dominated the life of the College.

In answering the question “Was it worth it?”, he felt that the College was now much stronger as organisation. As an example, a recent approach from a Third Sector organisation had enabled a Foundation Degree to be assembled within a prescribed timetable – which would not have previously been possible.  New College’s own degrees will be delivered in September.

Back to Top

PETER CRISP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF BPP LAW SCHOOL AND ADAM TEMPLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BPP CENTRE, BIRMINGHAM

Peter and Adam’s presentation was entitled “The Private HE Provider”

Private Sector Provision

Peter explained his position as Dean of BPP’s Law School, which had eight centres. He wondered whether we should still be talking in this way about the private sector when it was growing faster than the public.  Private sector growth would overtake public by 2025.

Adam explained that the private sector was an established HE provider. Kaplan, with Degree Awarding Powers, was working with Liverpool John Moores and University of Essex. Laureate was working with University of Liverpool. The London School of Business and Finance was working with London Metropolitan University.  Private sector work ranged from accreditation and validating with the University of Wales to INTO and the Cambridge Education Group, providing pathways to Higher Education. There was also a University Partnerships programme, where BPP managed real estate and halls of residence.

The University of Buckingham was a private provider established by Royal Charter. New private providers with TDAP after 2004 included the IFS School of Finance and Ashridge Business School. Private For Profit providers included BPP University College and the College of Law – recently acquired by Montagu, a private equity group.

Pearson with Edexcel now planned to offer degrees. US companies now planning a UK entry strategy included Bridgepoint, De Vry and Capella, with a stake in RDI, which was itself seeking UK TDAP.  Private Equity also sought entry, including Warburg Pincus and Englefield Capital.

BPP was formed in 1976 by three members of the accountancy faculty and was floated in 1986 as BPP Holdings PLC. In 2007 it became the first proprietary company to receive UK Degree Awarding Powers. In 2010 BPP became the first private University College for 30 years. 140,000 students studied annually with BPP.  BPP Law School now delivered 25,000 students for to be employed by law firms. There was also BPP School of Health and BPP Business School. Adam also described the BPP Education Group’s companies in other countries.

Degree Awarding Powers

For those asking about DAP, Peter said that DAP represented building on success. Although QAA had first suggested that BPP programmes might be validated by existing universities, there were reputational risks in linking with the wrong third party. BPP wanted independence. The QAA process took 18 months.

Peter explained that DAP meant many new programmes, including Certificates, Diplomas and Undergraduate Degrees in business, law accounting and marketing.  BPP could also work with employers for tailored programmes. DAP offered innovation and control over BPP does. BPP Fees were the same as top up fees elsewhere in Higher Education.

DAP also meant challenges, including contributing to research like a publicly maintained university. BPP research and scholarship outputs were not pier reviewed.  But it was competing with a public sector which could not lose its powers, though it might have misbehaved, mismanaged its finances and under invested in teachers. QAA was re visiting BPP this Autumn, but the public sector held its degree powers in perpetuity.

BPP as Higher Education Provider

BPP had adopted a structure which was like public HE. Votes on its Academic Council were weighted in favour of independents. Other usual functions were like those of a University.

Adam explained that BPP faculties were the same as the public sector, with 95% of staff employed. There were 16 UK Centres, which saw students joining BPP as the first stage of their career. BPP Centres tried to reflect the workplace and offered a variety of different mechanisms. Students wanted more contact time so there were 12 to 18 class sizes. There were 3 standard start dates – January, May and September. The typical week was up to 16 hours maximum teaching for two semesters.

Adam explained that BPP provision was designed around the workplace. More traditional delivery represented education for the 5%. CPD Research in 2006 showed that “33% of students wish they had chosen a different course, such as a more scientific/technical course or a business-based course or a professional vocation”. BPP was trying to meet this demand for career led degrees.

Peter said that the CBI/UUK ‘Future Fit’ Survey 2009 showed that most important Key Skills were those for employability.  Employers wanted students with business and employment oriented skills and qualifications.

The 50% participation target mentioned was not as important as gaining higher level skills.

Adam explained that though BPP had a national focus, there was also a need to be near where students lived – residential proximity.  BPP fees were the same as the top up in the public sector. Fees for a three year degree were £5,000. There was no HEFCE funding at all in this. Maximum class sizes were up to 18. The CBI “Stronger Together” Report in 2009 welcomed more private participation in HE.  BPP was here to stay.

PANEL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In reply to a question, Peter confirmed that BPP was already working with New College Swindon to deliver a BPP course using the College facilities. The BPP course was delivered by BPP staff. There was also general agreement that the QAA DAP process was taking too long.

Back to Top

CONFERENCE LUNCH BREAK

PROFESSOR DAVID GREEN, VICE CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UNIVERSITY OF WORCESTER

In a wide ranging presentation entitled “Real Inclusion in Practice”, David explained that Worcester would soon have 10,000 students.  It used to have a few hundred. We should think in terms of Life Changes, starting off with pre natal and Early Years Education. The University wanted to reach out to develop partnerships. People mistook educational change for innovation. Partnership and intensity were important. The University should participate in the local economy, so that working with the Third Sector, Health and Care were important, as was involvement in music, sport and enlightenment.  This might sound like a Victorian environment but it represented a whole institution approach. Worcester’s new University and Public Library would be opened by HM The Queen. Getting children used to going to Library at University was important in enabling their access to Higher Education.

It was important to grow HE. There was an ongoing national argument between those who wanted to cut their way to prosperity and those who produce their way. Instead the real distinction should be between Profit and Not for Profit. There was a poor history of For Profit Education over time.

Back to Top

PROFESSOR IAN OAKES, UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON AND BLACK COUNTRY LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

Ian’s presentation focused on the “Skills Challenge to the Black Country”.

Black Country Output Gap

He explained that the Black Country productivity challenge was a £5.9bn output gap for jobs, skills and business. Insufficient skills levels represented £1.4bn of this. His series of tables showed Black Country GCSE and NVQ attainment below the English average. Black Country working age qualifications were actually going down. Only attainment in Level 1 was above the national average.

The Black Country LEP had identified Key Transformational Sectors, including Advance Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Transport Technologies including Aerospace, Business Services and Environmental Technologies. Major developments included the Enterprise Zone, the Jaguar LandRover Engine Plant and Aerospace Sector. The Enterprise Zone would generate almost 4,000 new jobs by 2015 with relaxed planning regulations.  A £355mn investment in the JLR plant meant 750 jobs and a further 2,500 supply chain jobs. There had already been 20,000 applications for JLR jobs. But applicants needed not just qualifications but to be job ready.

Key Outcomes and Objectives

The Black Country LEP had identified key outcomes and smart objectives, with an 18% increase in employment – 8,900 jobs. Delivery of work experience, soft skills and the complex information landscape were LEP Key Themes. Education should be alongside workplace experience. Skills curricula should be revised in collaboration with Sector Skills Councils to match employer needs. There should be bite sized CPD opportunities for those in work and clearer accessible signposting for employers. Mapping the client journey against current provision could identify duplication and market failure.

Back to Top

LUKE MILLARD, BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY, PAUL CHAPMAN, BCU STUDENTS’ UNION AND KIM HUGHES, DUDLEY COLLEGE STUDENTS’ UNION

Patrick Highton explained that when he had been Director of the Birmingham, Black Country and Solihull Lifelong Learning Network, the LLN had successfully sponsored a Birmingham City University “Partnership working across Students’ Unions in FE Colleges – Birmingham and the Black Country” Project.

Virtual Student Union

Luke Millard explained that following the LLN initiative, this had been rolled out into the Black Country for development in partnership with the University of Wolverhampton and Black Country Colleges. This had become a “virtual Student Union” for students needing access and representation.

Paul Greatrix, Registrar at Nottingham University had emphasised in a recent Times Higher Education article that Student Unions were more important and relevant to universities and colleges than ever before. Meaningful student engagement was central to university and college life.

This “virtual Student Union” concept provided a student point of access not just for National Union of Student matters but for a wider range of university and college issues. It also provided an important communication tool for institutions with their students.

PHILLIP HALLAM, CEO, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL

Philip’s presentation was entitled “Flexible, Open and Distance Learning Approaches to HE Partnerships”.

About RDI

Philip explained that RDI was an international Higher Education organisation based in Coventry, founded 22 years ago, working in partnership with 8 UK universities to develop, market, deliver and support a wide range of online distance learning MBAs, Masters and Undergraduate Degrees to students in 150 countries. RDI also had a centre in Hong Kong and was currently under the scrutiny of QAA for TDAP.

Partnership Working

He continued that typically partnership working in the HE sector required a commitment of a minimum of 5 years and preferably 10 years. RDI’s longest partnership had been for 18 years. Building partnerships required significant investment and their continued success was highly dependent on the stability of people at HEIs. A change in people at an HEI was the most common factor in partnerships’ coming to an end and posed a significant risk to upfront investment made by RDI in any new partnership. This was one reason for RDI’s embarking on the TDAP process.

The investment risks in online provision were significant and took a minimum of 3 years to break even. Winding down online activities took a longer time since preserving the student experience was still the most important consideration. Unwinding a partnership was a costly process.

PANEL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In reply to a question, Ian Oakes agreed that not enough was known about the Black Country LEP’s activity and targets.

In reply to a question on RDI future activity, Phillip Hallam explained that achieving TDAP would enable RDI to respond more effectively to market demands whilst strengthening its relationships with its university partners.

CONCLUSION

The Conference concluded at 1530. Patrick Highton thanked colleagues for attendance and stressed the importance of completing Evaluation Forms, since the Black Country Partnership for Learning sought information for further conferences and events.

Back to Top

THIS CONFERENCE IS A VERY TIMELY EVENT

This piece represents a strong Huckfield recommendation. At only £95, this Conference represents exceedingly good value. A similar London Conference would be at last £300 plus fares.

This is the Black Country Partnership for Learning Online Booking Form.

Black Country Partnership for Learning

Black Country Partnership for Learning (BCPL) includes the University of Wolverhampton and seven Further Education Colleges:

• Dudley
• Halesowen
• King Edwards
• Sandwell
• Stourbridge
• Walsall
• Wolverhampton

BCPL held a highly successful 14-19 Years Post Wolf Conference on Friday 25 November 2011, with 100 attending from the West Midlands and beyond.

Friday May 25th 2012 at the Hawthorns Conference Centre, West Bromwich Albion Football Ground

This timely Conference which includes speakers and a programme which covers a very wide range of Further/Higher Education topics, especially if you read David Kernohan’s Wonke piece on Thursday 29 March 2012 about HEFCE’s projected grants for 2013, and all the uncertainties for the future arising from this.

From well-published delays in the Government’s Higher Education Bill, some colleagues may have thought things were settling down. But several other pieces recently including Andrew Fisher on Student Number Control, have highlighted continuing uncertainties for Higher Education, including Higher Education delivered in Further Education Colleges – not just for 2013 but in years to follow, especially since HE Margin bidding will continue.

Huckfield knows Further and Higher Education colleagues who, though they have developed strategies for 2013 enrolment, are still much perplexed about the years to come. This Conference is a good chance to get some answers.

Conference speakers range from the Minister for Higher Education and Science, Rt Hon David Willetts MP, through Higher Education in Further Education Specialists, including those from the private sector, including online provision to more local speakers with their local interpretations.

Conference Aims and Purpose

• To receive progress relating to the changing policy framework and institutional impact for Further and Higher Education Institutions
• To reflect on the new landscape emerging at the Further and Higher Education interface following the HE White Paper 2011
• To discuss practical responses, local partnerships and developments for 2012/2013 activity in colleges, universities and with private providers

Conference Programme and Speakers

09:45: Background and Context to the Conference

• BCPL Chair & Director

10:00: The Changing HE Policy Framework

• Rt. Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Higher Education and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
• A Perspective from the Association of Colleges – Nick Davy, HE Policy Manager

11:00: The New Landscape

• Validation and Accreditation Services for Higher Level Provision – John Davies, Head of Programme Development, Higher Education Awards, Pearson
• Foundation Degree Awarding Powers for FE Colleges – John Ellison, Head of Higher Education, New College Durham
• FE/HE and Private Sector Relationships in Higher Education – Peter Crisp, Chief Executive of BPP Law School and Adam Temple, Managing Director of BPP Centre, Birmingham

12:00: Panel Session/Questions and Answers from Floor

12:30: Lunch

13:30: Practical Responses and Local Partnerships

• Participation, Progression and Partnerships: Real Inclusion in Practice – Professor David Green, Vice Chancellor & Chief Executive, University of Worcester
• Local Enterprise Partnerships and Employer/Demand-Side Perspectives – Professor Ian Oakes, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Research and Enterprise, University of Wolverhampton and Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership Board

Panel Session/Questions and Answers from Floor

14:30: Practical and Local Developments

• Partnership working across Students’ Unions and College based Student Support functions across Birmingham and the Black Country – Luke Millard, Birmingham City University and Paul Chapman, BCU Students’ Union and Kim Hughes, Students’ Union, Dudley College
• Flexible, Open and Distance Learning Approaches to HE Partnerships – Dr Philip Hallam, CEO, Resource Development International Ltd (RDI)

Panel Session/Questions and Answers from Floor

15:30: Plenary Session– Key issues for participants, reactions to inputs, impact and implementation timelines 2012/2013 and beyond

AND, FINALLY

Huckfield attends many conferences and seminars. There is much uncertainty facing Further and Higher Education in the years to come. With this range of speakers and issues covered you won’t do much better anywhere else.

As above, this is the Black Country Partnership for Learning Online Booking Form.

Back to Top

(though Leslie Huckfield was one of the contributors at this event, this is posted as an objective summary of the day’s events)

Patrick Highton, Executive Director of the Black Country Learning Partnership, who had organised the Conference, welcomed colleagues to what he described as a timely event.

There were ongoing Consultations and Responses on 14 to 16 year old Qualifications and Performance Tables,  Study Programmes for 16 to 19 year olds and on 16 to 19 years funding.

• Consultations on Study Programmes and on funding were still open.
• Some contributions, including a paper during the afternoon on employers and qualifications, fitted alongside recent Government announcements.  

Pat introduced the first speaker on “Keynote Input – Should we welcome Wolf”.

John Freeman, Chair of Dudley College Corporation, related his background in Children’s Services and Education. His was a personal view. These were John’s main points:

•  He thought Alison Wolf’s Report “should welcomed  ..but”.  He agreed that too many young people were leaving schools and colleges demotivated.
• There was a need to match Wolf’s rhetoric with the reality. In 1988 he had devised TVEI entitlements for all 14 to 19s in Birmingham.  But this was then scuppered by the National Curriculum.
•  Throughout all this, there was a need to build incentives and disciplines. Wolf was showing how things might work. But who would decide all this?
•  In a speech in Cambridge reported in the Daily Mail, by Michael Gove, Education Secretary, said he wanted educational establishments to be “elitist”.

(On a personal note,  Michael Gove’s Cambridge speech on Thursday 24 November is detailed and thoughtful. Gove’s chosen theme was Gladstone’s 1879 Third Midlothian Address to Scottish miners and agricultural labourers and included some good points.)

John continued that:

• Wolf had asked whether it was right that lower attainers should focus on the “core academic skills of English and Maths” and whether young people should be asked to pursue these qualifications.   (As shown below, GCSE Maths and English became a major preoccupation for the rest of the day)

• While this aim was right, the implementation was wrong. For many young people, focusing on GCSEs would not work.

• On many of Wolf’s Recommendations, the devil was in the detail. He supported Recommendation 3 on a Common Core, but felt that lower post 16 attainers needed a special curriculum and not English and Maths. He supported a review of Apprenticeship Frameworks but was concerned about Michael Gove’s emphasis on end of course examinations.

• On Wolf’s recommendation that colleges could enrol under 16 Key Stage 4, he felt that this would increase the downward demographic pressure on schools too.

• He supported Performance Indicators for schools but stressed that Indicators should focus on what we valued.

• He conclusion was that the Wolf Report should be supported, but with reservations. Much of Wolf’s content had gone around and come around. We needed to think about lessons from past.

• The key role for those running colleges and schools was to must carry out their locally determined missions in the context of national policy. They must make sense locally of national policies.

Mike Cox, Head of Business Development at the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, spoke on the 14 to 19 Landscape and the Impact of Wolf. He told his personal story as engineer and running a company. These were Mike’s main points:

• He was proud of his craft background space. His experience took him back to Ted Heath’s Three Day Week.  He was emphatic that we should not lose those things we had already gained.

• While running an engineering company, he knew that competition from the Far East and the firm’s survival meant using the latest technology. He regaled his success buying second hand German Computer Numerically Controlled lathes and machine tools for less than £100,000 – much less than their original value  – only to find that no one in his company had the skills to use them.

• So his company set up its own internal training course and soon had 180 learners on courses to operate CNC machines. Workers felt that they were putting their course training to practical use with these machines.

• Alongside this practical training, he had seen many graduates coming into the company without any work skills. This was why the 14 to 19 agenda was so important.

• A previous Government’s ‘Increased Flexibilities’ programme for 14 to 16 year olds which was introduced in 2002, formed the basis for many current 14 to 19 policies. There was a need to build on these previous collaborations.

(Mike is right to refer to the ‘Increased Flexibilities’ programme. The 2004 Evaluation of the Programme was positive.  A total of 269 partnerships between schools and external providers were formed in the first year.  This £80 million programme sought to ‘create enhanced vocational and work-related learning opportunities for 14-16 year olds of all abilities who can benefit most’.  Students chose to participate in the programme because they were interested in a vocational area and because it was related to a career interest )

Mike concluded that we should welcome Wolf, but in doing so should make the most of vocational education which already existed.

Tessa Griffiths from the DfE Wolf Implementation Team spoke on the “Priorities and Timelines for Vocational Education Following the Wolf Recommendations”.  These were Tessa’s main points:

• Vocational education was more important in difficult economic times.

• The main focus was on simplifying apprenticeships,  improving the vocational offer for 14 to 16s and strengthening the principles of 16 to 19 vocational education. There would be soon be announcements of further support for smaller employers taking on apprentice.

• For 14 to 16s, Alison Wolf was concerned about the impact of performance tables on schools’ behaviour. Though these promoted vocational elements in schools, there had been a massive 4000 increase of vocational qualifications for Key Stage 4, many of which didn’t lead anywhere. Because of this Wolf advocated that there should be an academic Common Core for KS4. Much work related training at KS4 had little value.

• DfE had already carried out a consultation during summer on reform equivalencies. Equivalences would be removed. One qualification would count for one.

• DfE would include only highest quality vocational qualifications in Performance Tables in future and was working through all this with Awarding Organisations. A new list of qualifications would appear in January  2012 and would count in 2014 Performance Tables.

• For 16 to 19s, GCSE achievements in English and Maths were in the mid 50%. Wolf was concerned about those not getting enough from 16 to 19 qualifications.

• Employers wanted new employees with GCSE English and Maths in GCSE but they also complained about lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills.

• There were two current consultations on FE funding and FE Study Programmes. Every single learner should follow a coherent Study Programme. Colleges would be given an envelope of funding and required to devise coherent Study Programmes. Study Programmes might include various elements – including a qualification of substantial size and work related elements.

• There would be English and Maths for those not achieving these previously. The challenge was to devise relationships between prescribed programmes and flexibilities.  DfE was not saying that students should simply continue taking English and Maths and recognised that there might be other qualifications in future. This was not a compulsory requirement so providers could use professional judgements.

• Though DfE had already published Responses to Consultations on 14 to 16 Qualifications and Performance Tables had been published in October, the Consultation on Study Programmes for 16 to 19 year olds was still open.

• DfE wanted to know how barriers to higher quality work experience might be overcome and how achievement in Level 2 English and Maths might be improved.

Tessa concluded that though she might not be able to stay for the whole of the day, that DfE was anxious to receive as many views as possible.

Geoff Daniels, Funding Reform Adviser from Young People’s Learning Agency, spoke on “Strategic and Funding Considerations – Implications for Institutions 2012 and Beyond”.

 He explained that he had started his career teaching in Dudley 37 years ago. He sought to pick up some of the main Strategic and Funding in the current consultation, with its broad compass of simplifying systems, giving more choice and enabling a better response from institutions. These were Geoff’s main points:

• Colleges would be free to enrol pre 16. Though this was not a requirement, it enabled greater flexibility for colleges.
• Those holding a QTLS qualification can teach in schools. This brings qualifications into line with QTS. UTCs and Studio Schools were also key developments.
• Colleges can sponsor Academies, which began with 200 but were now around 1500. 40 academies were sponsored by colleges.
• The funding consultation concludes on Wednesday 04 January 2012. It would not be implemented for the 2013/2014 funding year, which afforded time for lessons to be absorbed. The new formula would feed into allocations for 2013/2014 alongside raising the participation age to 17.  In 2015/2016 the participation age would be raised to 18.

1. Geoff explained that the scope of the consultation ranged over:Disadvantage Funding – which could be aligned with pre 16 funding. There were, however, differences from the Pupil Premium, since there would not be a significant allocation additional funding.
2. Funding Learners’ Programmes.
3. How to accommodate Achievement of Success in the funding formula. Though the Success Factor included results, its emphasis on payment by qualifications had made this less challenging than they should be.
4. Other factors including area costs and residential care standards.

• Disadvantage Funding. Post 16 this was split between Disadvantage Funding and Additional Learning Support, with links to prior attainment. Should these be brought together in a single budget or retain a degree of split? Learning Support might be allocated within programme funding across the cohort. What the is method for allocation? Free School Meals, the Index of Multiple Deprivation or the Income Deprivation affecting Children Index. Should there be additional categories?
• Participation Funding. Funding per learner is a key principle. What will the full time rate be? 600 hours of teaching should be affordable and the rate per learner should fund this. Some programmes were more than this but there were others with less. An important point was that future weighting would be at programme rather than qualification level. The number of programme weightings could be reduced.
• Success factor. There were issues around transparency. OFSTED would continue to use similar indicators. The Consultation sought to look at options – retain, remove or something in between. The current Success Factor is about both retention and qualification.
• Other factors including area costs and residential care standards. Allocations to landbased and specialist providers would continue. The Short Programme Modifier would probably be removed.
• Implementation and Next Steps. A transition was needed with options to manage funding volatility. Processes were needed to manage the transition, with a shadow allocation for 2012/2013 and allocations for 2013/2014 based on the new formula.

After lunch there were the following speaker contributions:

 ‘Developments in the Mathematics Curriculum post-Wolf’ by Charlie Stripp, Chief Executive, Mathematics in Education and Industry.  Charlie described other related qualifications alongside GCSE Maths and the need for qualifications post 16 beyond GCSE.

‘English and Maths Qualifications – or Alternatives – for 16-18 yr olds’ by Glynis Frater, Director, Learning Cultures.  Glynis said that many difficulties arising post 16 were because  Functional Skills had been neglected and should be brought more into the curriculum.

‘Trusted Qualifications, the Regulatory Framework and Opportunities for Curriculum Development’ by John Brenchley, OCR and Leslie Huckfield, LH Research.  John described the fundamental changes taking place throughout 14 to 19 education and emphasised the need for qualifications which employers understood and could trust. Leslie Huckfield said that Wolf had also made important recommendations about more employer involvement, which should not be overlooked.

Questions and Discussion Groups

It was most interesting that though the Conference covered a very wide range of Post Wolf 14 to 19 topics, the issue which dominated most questions to Panels and in Discussions Groups afterwards centred on the appropriateness and suitability of GCSE English and Maths for lower attainers. Though the significance and relevance of these qualifications were recognised, many strong opinions were expressed that these were not always the basis of an appropriate Study Programme for Post 16 lower attainers.

Initial Evaluation Feed from the day was very positive and deservedly so.  A wide range of speakers and contributions had contributed to a worthwhile event.

The significant feature emerging from all proposed Primary, Secondary, Further and Higher Education reforms is that Michael Gove and David Willetts are driving these forward in a very personal way. Messrs Gove and Willetts don’t deliver speeches written by their Private Offices. They clearly write their own. Michael Gove’s speeches to the Policy Exchange on Monday 20 June, at the Durand Academy on Thursday 01 September and to OFQUAL on Thursday 13 October, were major policy deliveries.

Overview

As following shows, these Gove and Willetts declared policies are not fiddling around at the policy margins. They are pressing hard for really fundamental change.  This is only a rough summary of the policy areas where big changes are proposed:

• Revised Early Years Foundation Stage. EYFS is a comprehensive statutory framework that sets standards for learning, development and care of children from birth to five.
• Personal, Social, Health and Economic education. A programme of learning opportunities and experiences to help children and young people grow and develop as individuals and as members of families and of social and economic communities.
• Criteria for 14-16 ‘league tables’. Only “highest quality qualifications” will be included in the new school league tables.
• School revenue funding and capital reform. Fundamental changes to both of these – as shown below.
• Regulation of the teaching profession. The Education Act, which received Royal Assent on Tuesday 15 November 2011 abolishes five quangos: the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young Person’s Learning Agency. The Act gives new powers to the Secretary of State as a consequence of some of these changes
• Teacher pensions. Reforms are included in other public sector pension reform proposals. For teachers the following changes are proposed:

• Moving from a final salary pension to a career average pension scheme
• A phased increase to teachers’ Normal Pension Age in line with changes to the State Pension Age
• A rebalancing of employee and employer contributions to provide a fairer distribution between members and other taxpayer.

• FE Reform and FE loans. On 16 November 2010 the Government published two documents which set out a radical new strategy for further education and skills, Skills for Sustainable Growth and Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth.  Though its proposals for further FE Reform in “New Challenges. New Changes” of Tuesday 16 August 2011 have received less coverage, some of these are covered in a Huckfield Blog below, “Employers, Skills and Qualifications – Wolf Points the Way”. “New Challenges, New Chances” and associated documents contain proposals to take this strategy further by making detailed proposals in areas ranging from informal adult and community learning to data requirements on colleges
• Adult and Community Learning. But four previously separate funding allocations (Personal and Community Development Learning, Family Literacy, Language and Numeracy, Wider Family Learning and Neighbourhood Learning in Deprived Communities) are now combined into a single allocation.  They are now “de ring fenced”. Providers are now free to decide how they meet commitments and respond to local communities. Consultation is taking place as part of “New Challenges. New Chances”
• HE White Paper. Friday 11 November 2011 was the deadline for the first “margin bids” for 20,000 lower cost places in the White Paper “Students at the Heart of the System of Tuesday 28 June 2011. 202 bids were received for a total of 35,811 student places. 34 bids were from HE institutions and 167 bids from FE colleges for students on higher education courses
• Regulatory framework for HE. This “Technical Consultation” concluded on Thursday 27 October 2011. HEFCE now becomes a regulatory rather than funding body and will need extended powers for the private sector.
• Early Repayment mechanisms for student loans. BIS is running a series of consultations on early repayment on the grounds that “it is important that those on the highest incomes after graduation are not able unfairly to buy themselves out of this progressive mechanism by paying off their loans early”
• Open Data. The Departments for Education and Business, Innovation and Skills seek to provide much more data about schools, achievements and impacts. DfE has already “opened up” much of this on its website
•  Other reviews, including consequences of the summer riots, administration of examinations, teacher training and recruitment, the UCAS tariff, inspection arrangements for the FE Sector, Colleges in the Community and professionalism in the FE Sector.

Themes Continue Through Different Education Levels.

It is interesting that some of the themes for change in these reviews will be carried through from one stage of education to another. The principle of the Pupil Premium, introduced by the Coalition Government, may be carried through into the proposed reform of FE Funding. Interestingly, the House of Commons BIS Select Committee Report on Reform of Higher Education has suggested that this principle might even be followed through into HE.

School Funding

Finally, a note on school revenue funding. It was only after the “Schools Funding Crisis” in 2003, when Charles Clarke discovered that Education Department funding was not necessarily being spent on Schools, that there came the introduction of Dedicated Schools Grant in 2006/2007. The current schools grant is based on a “spend plus formula” which has been maintained.

Since school reform funding proposals are beginning to reach the headlines, a future blog will give more background.

He continued that “a university selling a stake to a private buyer ‘gets better staff, better, infrastructure. Its dependence on the taxpayer is lessened……..There are a number of private equity buyers and trade buyers who are in talks with British universities about doing various things. There is no one model”

Also last week, on Friday 14 October, the US Huffington Post carried a story which headlined Goldman Sachs’ increasing stake in the US Education Management Corporation as “predatory pursuit of students and revenues”. The story compared Goldman Sachs’ and the Education Management Corporation’s recruitment of students with their loans with the piling up and securitisation of subprime mortgages:

“But unlike in the mortgage markets, where some unwise or unlucky investor got saddled with the bad loans after the festivities ended and home prices fell, this new market in higher education boasted seemingly unlimited growth potential at virtually zero risk. The burden of college loan repayment falls entirely on students’ backs, shielding corporations from the consequences of default. The colleges essentially receive all their revenues upfront, primarily through federal government loans and grants for tuition, regardless of whether students are able to gain employment and pay back their loans”

This is not to suggest that David Willetts’ opening the HE door wider to the private sector will result in a huge expansion of Student Loan Company subprime debt. Provided that Student Number, QAA and OFFA Controls are retained and linked with the Student Loan Company, and provided that strong enough regulatory powers are developed for private sector involvement in Higher Education, these should be enough to prevent the “predatory pursuit of students and revenues”.

But, whatever happens, in England at least there will be increasing private sector involvement in Higher Education. Irrespective of whether Germany and France may this weekend expand the European Financial Stability Facility – with support from the IMF – sufficiently to keep the Euro afloat, there are very few predictions of any future return to previous levels of economic growth and higher levels of public spending. Even if the UK Coalition Government suddenly discovered a generous and effective Plan B or if there is a change of Government on Thursday 15 May 2015 (the date is already fixed ), there will be much more private sector involvement in Higher Education.

Public Expenditure Savings in Higher Education

In September 2011, Universities UK’s “Effectiveness and Efficiency in Higher Education” said that Higher Education:

• generates over £59 billion of output for the UK economy
• creates over 660,000 jobs
• delivers more than £5.3 billion in exports

There is no doubt over the contribution of Higher Education to the UK economy, which is second only to computing. On involvement of the private sector, in its Executive Summary, the UUK Report says:

“There is significant potential for outsourcing and the development of strategic relationships with the private sector to deliver services”.

Recommendation 9 of the UUK Report says that to speed delivery of more shared services:

“The Government should implement the EU VAT exemption on cost sharing, and work with the sector to develop mechanisms that can incentivise the development of shared services. The recent HM Treasury consultation on the EU VAT exemption was a positive step”.

But realistically, in view of most of the future economic and public spending predictions currently being made, HE  savings will need to be greater than the examples quoted where Liverpool John Moore saved £100,000 on photocopying and Cumbria shaved £45,000 from its staff costs.

The University UK Report’s Executive Summary is not encouraging when it says:

“Information on the costs of operational activities within higher education is poor. This means it is difficult for institutions to effectively calculate the benefits of efficiency initiatives and demonstrate widely how they are ensuring value for money.”

The UUK Report also refers to the National Audit Office evaluation in 2007 of the implementation of Gershon Report savings and found a lack of clarity over where savings had been achieved. The NAO noted that “nearly three-quarters (74%) of reported efficiency savings were open to question as the data and benchmarking frameworks from which they were evidenced were inadequate. This was not to say that savings had not been made, but rather that they were difficult to verify.”

Ways Forward for the Private Sector

In August 2011 the accountants Grant Thornton published a Report on “The Financial Health of the Higher Education Sector”, which was both more brutal and perhaps more realistic.

Grant Thornton agreed with UUK saying that “The HE sector makes a varied and diverse contribution to the UK economy. The total turnover of the HE sector in 2010 amounted to £26.4 billion and directly employed some 130,000 people.”

Grant Thornton looked at all UK Higher Education Institution published accounts for 2009/2010. In its chapter ‘A New Operating Model for the Sector’ the Report says:

“What makes Higher Education a target for cuts is that the cost of providing such a world class system is significant. In 2009/10, the aggregate direct operating cost of operating the combined universities of the UK was more than £25 billion.

Grant Thornton makes more worrying projections. In its scenarios of ‘The Future of the HE Sector’, the Report says:

“We believe that reductions in research funding, both from the Funding agencies and from the Research Councils and other bodies such as charities, will fall almost completely on the non-research based universities. Future research funding is likely to be concentrated almost exclusively in those institutions comprising the Russell Group and the 1994 Group. As a result we forecast that research income elsewhere in the sector, although relatively unimportant, will reduce to almost nothing”.

Based on this, in its ‘New Operating Model for the Sector’, Grant Thornton continues:

“Of that amount, over £14 billion was the cost of the people who work in universities. However, less than 45% of those staff constituted what the business gurus might call the ‘unique selling proposition’ of UK universities, namely the lecturers and the researchers who are responsible for the delivery of that world-class system. The rest was spent upon the infrastructure and the support functions that allow those lecturers and researchers to carry out their tasks. That is not to say that those supporting functions and the infrastructure are unimportant, but they are not unique (with possibly some exceptions), nor are they the reason for the world class ranking of UK universities”.

“Taking these trends further, we suggest that rather than ‘pick off’ the functions that can be shared or outsourced, a new approach would be to identify only those areas of the university function that are involved in those parts of the Higher Education delivery of provision that are unique to the individual institution, and seek to have all of the other functions delivered externally”

“The academic operation, managed by academics (with some commercial support), would be the university – recruiting and teaching students, interacting with the community, and undertaking research. That university would buy-in all of its infrastructure and administrative requirements – from finance and registry functions to the use of lecture theatres, laboratories and offices – from a third party provider specialising in the management and delivery of such services. It would provide those services under service level agreements overseen by a joint academic/business support team”.

A Conclusion?

Grant Thornton above is quoted at length, and much of this is difficult to swallow.

But surely this route for private sector involvement is preferable to the reported route taken by Goldman Sachs and the Education Management Corporation in the US?

Though this appeared a week before “Students at the Heart of the System”,  from the high level Conservative patronage and endorsements proudly displayed on its website, Policy Exchange must have had a good idea of contents of the Government’s Higher Education White Paper.

Policy Exchange is well connected and never knowingly under researched. It should be taken seriously since the essence of many of its ideas get delivered.  So careful reading of Policy Exchange content is needed.

“Vocational Value” has one key paragraph on page 11, which probably says it all:

“The Coalition government’ s recent  ‘Skills Strategy ’…..   arguing  that  “we  are  currently  weak  in  the  vital  intermediate technical skills that are increasingly important as jobs become more highly skilled and  technological  change  accelerates.”

Since SEMTA, the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Technology reckons that one in four firms have skills gaps, page 11 continues:

“These are industries  historically  well  served  by  higher  level  technical  education  –  often delivered  by  colleges.  Higher  education  in  further  education  represents  an important means of filling today’ s gap”

Much of “Vocational Value” seems to suggest that filling this gap should be future Higher Education role for Further Education Collages.

A main recommendation is expansion of so called “short cycle” HE in Further Education Colleges. 80% of HE provision in FE Colleges is short cycle – half of which is Foundation Degrees and Higher Nationals.  In other words, Policy Exchange wants Colleges to do more of what they do now.

“Vocational Value” also makes a specific recommendation that Non Prescribed HE Qualifications might be supported through Student Loans. FE Colleges deliver a wide range of NPHE qualifications from Edexcel, City and Guilds, Association of Accounting Technicians, Chartered Institute of Marketing and Institute of Legal Executives which include programmes in teaching, management, accountancy, marketing and other specialist subjects as well as Level 4/5 NVQs.

The Skills Funding Agency has the power to fund these, but this is not required.  So this suggestion might even mean moving NPHEs from one funding body to another – from SFA to HEFCE and student loans.

Even if all this took place, the Mixed Economy Group, which represents larger HE delivery FE Colleges, in its “Strategy Options” paper shows that Non Prescribed HE may represent only 10% of FE Colleges’ HE offer.

But in the White Paper’s new environment, surely FE Colleges can do more than providing more short cycle courses and more through loans for NPHE courses?

A More Complex Picture

The HE in FE picture is more complex than this. Policy Exchange is right in confirming that since the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, Universities, including former Polytechnics, have seen more Higher Education expansion and publicity than FE Colleges.  It is significant that Lord Browne’s Report hardly mentioned Further Education.

HEFCE’s own figures show:

• In 2007-08 113,000 students based on full person equivalents (FPEs) undertook HEFCE  funded HE programmes in FE Colleges
• 63% of students studied foundation degrees and sub-degree programmes like HNC and  HNDs  
• While 48 % of students were part-time, a majority of students doing first degrees and Foundation Degrees were full-time
• The number of students at FE Colleges enrolled on HE courses varies considerably – 104 colleges had less than 200 students based on FPE (full person equivalent), and 26 had more than 1,000 based on FPE out of a total of 271.
• Half of this provision (based on FPE) is funded indirectly through an HEI.

The Mixed Economy Group of FE Colleges Strategic Options paper puts this another way:

“The most recent validated data for 2007/2008 reports that 112,595 students were studying on HEFCE recognised HE programmes, of which 13,445 were on non-HEFCE funded and 99,145 on HEFCE funded programmes at 271 FECs and Sixth Form Colleges.

“In 2009-10, HEFCE funds 130 HEIs and directly funds 125 colleges.  The majority of these colleges also receive funding indirectly through one or more HEIs.  The provisional funding allocations for 2010-1116  indicate 123 colleges will be directly funded by HEFCE”.  

Though “Vocational Value” says that only one in 12 HE students is at an FE College, each of the 39 Mixed Economy Group of FE Colleges have more than 500 HE Students. Many have more than 1000. Some have more than 5000 full and part time HE students. Some larger FE providers of HE receive teaching budgets larger than some universities.

And much of this delivery takes place despite Colleges’ HE income being top sliced twice.  The Mixed Economy Group shows that many Colleges receive only 70-80% of HE funding income. After contribution to College Core Costs, this often funds only 65% to 70% of actual HE delivery costs.

The new White Paper Environment

Despite this, many FE Colleges have the ability to expand significantly their HE provision. In anticipation of the new hinterland projected in the June 28 White Paper, The Manchester College has set its 2012-2013 standard fee at £5400. Newcastle College has set £5800 and New College Durham £6000. Newcastle and Durham have just been given Foundation Degree Awarding Powers.

This is not a marketing piece for the Association of Colleges. There is enough research and survey information which shows that many students prefer to study HE at a local FE College because:

-        it is local so that students remain close to family and work

-        it offers an environment with familiar ways of teaching and delivery

-        it offers sympathetic support for adult learners, with lower student to staff ratios

-        it offers higher class contact hours, often up to 18 hours a week

In the new environment in the Government’s White Paper, where HE deliverers will be required to spell out more of this in detail, there is surely a more complex FE delivery platform and wider FE College role in HE than projected by Policy Exchange?

HE students in FE are more likely to be over 25, to study part-time, to study nearer home, and to come from areas with low rates of HE participation. HE delivery in FE makes an important contribution to widening participation in HE.

As degrees delivered by FE Colleges expand in range and number, many will be different rather than competitive with those from Universities. Many will have a tighter employer and knowledge transfer focus and will score highly for employability outcomes.

The Mixed Economy Group’s Strategy Paper shows 66 Colleges and 36 partnerships. HESA figures show many universities with more than 10 external FE College delivery partners. The University of Sunderland has 20 delivery partners, Canterbury Christ Church has 20 and University of Central Lancashire more than 20. The Universities of Huddersfield and Greenwich each have more than 30. All these involve different patterns of delivery, including whole course delivery.

Most of these universities in partnership with FE Colleges are post 1992 modern university Million Plus members. In partnership with FE Colleges they have already made significant strides in opening access and contribute to increased social mobility.

The post 1992 modern universities have more than a third of non white UK domiciled students and  nearly a quarter of all mature students. Many post 1992 University Access Agreements show intakes of more than 90% from state schools, more than 25% from low participation neighbourhoods and nearly 50% of students from NS SEC 4-7, the lowest social group.

Detailed analysis of Educational Maintenance Allowances, various FE College access, hardship and bursaries shows that their FE College HE partners mirror these enrolment profiles.  HE Access Agreements for FE Colleges show similar figures for low participation and low income neighbourhoods.

HE Potential in FE Colleges

Policy Exchange urges Ministers to promote expansion of cheaper, vocational courses by creating a “level playing field” for Further Education Colleges.

But, as shown above, the territory now opening up is more complicated than that, with much wider FE potential to expand in a wider variety of ways. A more uplifting horizon lies ahead for HE delivery in FE Colleges than expanding short cycle courses or allowing those on currently Non Prescribed HE Courses to access Student Loans.