7. Memorandum submitted by the Mixed Economy
Group of Colleges (MEG)
INTRODUCTION
The Mixed Economy Group of Colleges (MEG) welcomes
the recognition contained within the White Paper of the role that
such further education colleges can play in the provision of higher
education. The Mixed Economy Group accounts for well over half
the higher education provided in further education and many of
the colleges have been providing Higher National Diplomas and
Certificates and Honours Degree programmes for several decades.
In so doing they meet much of the Government's agenda in terms
of widening participation, the higher technician skills agenda,
local provision and mixed modes of delivery. The scope of their
activities means that they have critical mass, a higher education
ethos and the experience to respond to the Government's 50% target.
The Mixed Economy Group welcomes the statements in the White Paper
that demonstrate an understanding of the work of the Group and
a commitment to the growth of such activity. The following comments
relate specifically to the sections of the White Paper.
CHAPTER 3: HIGHER
EDUCATION BUSINESS—EXCHANGING
AND DEVELOPING
KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS
Paragraphs 3.6-3.9
There may be opportunities for local/regional
partnerships for FE colleges to be part of the network of twenty
knowledge exchanges. Partnerships for Progression links HEIs,
FE colleges and business.
Paragraphs 3.10-3.12
FE colleges need to be involved in links with
HEIs and RDA in a proactive way. FE colleges have excellent sub
regional networks and not to use these would be inconsistent with
Government policy.
Paragraphs 3.16-3.17
Further education colleges already have links
with sector skills councils, although these need to be developed.
Paragraphs 3.20-3.22
A commitment to continue to increase participation
towards 50% of those aged 18-30, particularly through the two
year work focus foundation degrees is welcomed. The Mixed Economy
Group have figured highly in the development and the delivery
of foundation degrees to date and see their continuing expansion
as a major plank in the delivery of the 50% participation rate.
Further clarity is required in relation to the position of HNDs/HNCs
including whether the implied funding for foundation students
will apply to HNDs/HNCs. The recognition of quality HNDs/HNCs
by employers is still high and there is resistance by some employers
regarding foundation degrees implying an academic rather than
a vocational qualification.
CHAPTER 4: TEACHING
AND LEARNING
DELIVERING EXCELLENCE
The establishment of centres of teaching excellence
is welcomed but will further education colleges be able to access
CoTE status and, if so, will the selection criteria reflect the
different experiences of further education colleges and HEI based
HE staff?
Paragraph 4.14
One unitary body to incorporate the work of
the HESDA, ILTHE, LTSN and NCT, should lead to a more coherent
provision for all concerned with higher education teaching.
Paragraph 4.35
In a new hierarchical system of HE it is to
be hoped that the Mixed Economy Colleges may have a role even
if this is only as a subset of teaching—only universities.
CHAPTER 5—EXPANDING
HIGHER EDUCATION
TO MEET
OUR NEEDS
Paragraph 5.10
A two year FTE qualification cannot be seen
as a sensible alternative to a one year FTE qualification such
as an HNC and could result in either less uptake (compared to
HNCs) or in a "dumbing down" of foundation degrees to
enable achievement within a two year timescale.
Paragraph 5.21-5.22
It is characteristic of Mixed Economy Colleges
that they are directly funded from HEFCE. Such direct funding
has enabled them to grow and prosper and to deliver the objectives
mentioned in the introduction to this Paper. Any change to the
pattern of direct funding could be counter-productive. It is vital
that the direct funding route is maintained for such colleges.
A more rigorous quality assurance system through the QAA would
be one method of ensuring that quality is maintained. The structured
partnerships referred to in Para 5.21 imply a burden on HEIs to
initiate such relationships and experience has shown that HEIs
are not always willing to undertake this burden. Niche areas are
precisely the major growth areas for Mixed Economy Colleges. Such
innovation must not be allowed to be stifled by fears on quality
which can be met in another way.
Paragraph 5.23
The establishment of a national body for foundation
degrees is welcomed. Providing such a network adopts a partnership
approach otherwise many Mixed Economy Colleges will be reluctant
to move from their existing Higher National Diploma pattern of
provision.
Paragraph 5.24
We welcome the statements that the Government
are ensuring that HEFCE and the LSC take forward ways of reducing
the difficulties that Mixed Economy Institutions currently face
in operating within the two funding regimes. However we would
view with considerable disquiet any suggestion that we should
be simply placed within the one funding regime. It should not
be impossible to reduce the administrative and legislative barriers
to enable Mixed Economy Colleges to take advantage of funding
as an HEI for their higher education provision, particularly in
terms of capital build.
Paragraph 5.26
Many Mixed Economy Colleges suffer from not
being able to provide residential accommodation in order to facilitate
further international recruitment. Their status as general further
education colleges does not help in discussions with private providers
to undertake such investment.
CHAPTER 6—FAIR
ACCESS
Paragraph 6.24
The MEG Colleges welcome targeted funding for
students from less traditional backgrounds. The Group also welcome
a new package of grant support for part-time students, particularly
as part-time students currently have little access to financial
support. The needs of students taking non-prescribed higher education
(almost all part-time) need also to be considered.
CHAPTER 7—FREEDOMS
AND FUNDING
It is unlikely that MEG Colleges will want to
raise fees given the recruitment of non-traditional higher education
students.
Pages 76-77
The Group welcome the re-introduction from 2004
of the grant of £1,000 per year for students from lower income
groups, although the sum is less than we would have hoped for,
such a sum will make a difference. Undoubtedly the idea of looming
debt will however be a disincentive for some. The raising of the
threshold from April 2005 for graduates to have start repaying
their fee contribution and maintenance loan from £10,000
to £15,000 is also welcomed but may well still be a disincentive
for vulnerable students.
Paragraph 7.4
The creation of a Leadership Foundation working
in partnership with the new Learning and Skills Leadership College
is welcomed but will this compliment LSC funded leadership and
management COVEs, especially if such a COVE is also a MEG College
with significant HE?
February 2003
| 
