Examination of Witnesses (Questions 350-359)
WEDNESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2003
DR ROGER
BROWN, MS
PATRICIA AMBROSE
AND DR
MICHAEL THROWER
Chairman
350. Welcome to our proceedings. I wondered,
Dr Brown, only because you are sitting in the centre, if you wanted
to make a brief, opening contribution?
(Dr Brown) It will be very brief, Chairman.
First of all, thank you very much for inviting us to give evidence.
We are grateful for the opportunity. As you will appreciate, we
represent the higher education colleges, which are part of the
higher education sector, and offer about 10% of the higher education;
10% of higher education students are in SCOP colleges. We are
for all practical purposes like the universities, in that our
staff are engaged in teaching, research and scholarship. Our view
overall is that the White Paper is a mixed bag, that it contains
a number of distinct positives, but there are also quite a number
of issues which could be positive or negative, depending upon
how they are implemented, and you might want to ask us about some
of those things in the course of your questioning.
351. Dr Thrower, what is the difference between
you and the other gang?
(Dr Thrower) Our gang, Chairman, represents further
education colleges. Further education colleges produce 12% of
the higher education in the country. There are 230 colleges in
all, and of the 230 colleges, my group represents 23, and they
between them produce over half the higher education in further
education. So although there is a view or has been a view that
perhaps higher education is spread thinly across those 230 colleges,
the reverse is true. The top 40 providers actually produce nearly
80% of the higher education in further education.
352. What is the overall percentage of HE that
is conducted both your areas?
(Dr Brown) I suppose it would be 21%.
353. So 21% of HE actually does not take place
in the conventional university system.
(Dr Brown) Correct.
354. We should get that on the record, because
we often have different figures given to us on that. Can I then
ask you this, Dr Brown: as I understand it, you have some misgivings
about foundation degrees.
(Dr Brown) I think that would be a fair statement,
Chairman. Basically, I believe that they are a solution looking
for a problem. There is a longstanding problem, which is how you
develop the advanced vocational qualifications, but I think our
view would be that they are not the answer as a generic, across-the-piece
qualification. They may be in certain niche areas. We can say
a bit more about what the criteria for those niche areas are,
but as they stand at the moment they are not, in my view, the
means of achieving the expansion the Government wishes to see,
and I could even see some detriments if they actually make it
more difficult to attract students on to courses like Higher National
Diplomas, for example. My institution is the second biggest provider
of Higher National Diplomas in the country, and I am quite seriously
concerned that employers could get rather confused signals by
a plethora of competing qualifications with a new qualification
that employers have not yet been led to understand, shall we say.
355. I saw your article in The Guardian
regarding that, but is that a personal view or a view from SCOP?
(Dr Brown) It is largely a personal view. I think
there are some successful foundation degrees in SCOP colleges,
but I think the SCOP sector as a whole would say, whatever else
you do, do not detract from existing qualifications that have
attracted the support of employers. It takes a while to get British
employers interested in work-based qualifications—or "work-focussed"
is the phrase that is now being used—and therefore we would
want to proceed on parallel fronts, and there is a danger, as
I say, that by having a new product that is not yet fully market
tested, you could actually force some employers away from existing
qualifications that do have their support.
Chairman: We are very grateful when people
who are representing a group of organisations do speak freely
and independently as well as being cautious and speaking only
with the corporate voice. That is very welcome, Dr Brown and Dr
Thrower. If you want to speak for your institution or personally,
we would be very grateful.
Mr Chaytor
356. Can I just pursue the point about the foundation
degrees? Why could HNDs not be assimilated into foundation degrees?
(Dr Brown) There are various reasons, but the fundamental
reason is that foundation degrees are intended to be work-based;
in other words, a part of the educational experience will be gained
in work.
357. Someone doing an HNC is doing exactly that,
surely.
(Dr Brown) No, not necessarily. It is not a requirement
for an HNC or HND that there should be a work-based element. There
very often is, but it is not a requirement. The other thing is,
of course, that Higher National Diplomas are meant to be a national
qualification, conforming to national standards, which are set
down by QCA and implemented by the awarding body, Edexcel. Foundation
degrees are not yet a national qualification, and I do not see
how they ever can be, because they are meant to tailor to a particular
niche market which is going to be very difficult to control in
a national kind of way.
358. On the question of progression to honours
degrees, what do you think about the debate there? Ought they
to be a stepping stone to an honours degree, or ought they to
be entirely a qualification in their own right?
(Dr Brown) You will never sell them unless thee is
a progression route, and this is why I say they are different
from HNDs. Many institutions like mine have an articulation arrangement
that students can go on from an HND to the third year or second
year of an honours degree course, depending on the student. So
those articulation possibilities are there. The Government has
swung right round. When foundation degrees were first launched,
there was no question about people carrying on within higher education,
then suddenly they became a higher education qualification. Now
the Government seems to be swinging back and Mrs Hodge is saying,
"No, you can't go on from a foundation degree. It has to
be a terminal qualification," where, if she is not careful,
it will be a terminal qualification.
359. Can I switch to the question of teaching
and learning? You are obviously happy with the idea that university
status can be awarded on the basis of taught degrees alone, but
in your opening remarks you mentioned that your staff were engaged
in teaching, research and scholarship. Do you think there are
implications for your staff engaged in research and scholarship
with the emergence of taught degree awarding powers?
(Dr Brown) I think there are a lot of misconceptions
here. First of all, you will not have teaching-only institutions.
All higher education institutions have staff who are or should
be engaged in research and scholarship. What no-one has yet pointed
out is that the criteria for taught degree awarding powers now
involves having staff engaged in research and scholarship. The
idea that you are going to have literally teaching-only institutions
does not stand up at all. Basically, all it will mean is that
you will not want to get research degree awarding powers. Research
degree awarding powers in a way has nothing to do with research
and scholarship; it is simply a measure of the extent and maturity
of the research and scholarship that takes place and is, I think,
heavily skewed towards an inappropriate model of research anyway,
which is reflected through the RAE and existing definitions of
research. So there is no way that if we got taught degree awarding
powers or a university title we would want our staff not to be
engaged in research and scholarship.
|
