Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-559)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2003
PROFESSOR DAVID
EASTWOOD AND
DR PETER
KNIGHT
Jeff Ennis
540. The expansion into foundation degrees,
how do you see that panning out? Will it be the vehicle for FE
or will it be the vehicle for HE or what?
(Professor Eastwood) I think if foundation degrees
are going to succeed, the White Paper positions them correctly,
that is to say, at the interface for FE and HE. I think quite
a lot more work needs to be done. I think it is probably unfortunate
that the White Paper's emphasis on growing foundation degrees
is translated into a virtual cessation of growth at a traditional
undergraduate level because I am not yet persuaded that the student
demand is there on that kind of scale. I also think that the foundation
degrees do not just interface with what traditionally has been
done in HE, but they also interface with 14 to 19 qualifications.
Wearing another hat, I am about to join Mike Tomlinson's group
to look at that and I think it is only actually when that group
has completed its work and the Government has responded to whatever
recommendations come out of that group that we will be able to
look at the landscape in terms of the ways in which students might
reasonably think about progression through it. So I think part
of my worry about foundation degrees is to some extent they are
hanging out there at the moment in advance of some of the other
transformations of the qualification framework that we need. Nevertheless,
I think that the HE sector's response to the foundation degree
proposals has been broadly enthusiastic. Institutions like mine
are looking afresh at the kind of partnerships we will need, and
are in discussions with LSC as well as potential partner institutions.
If I can just flag this, because I do look after the University
of East Anglia, I think the whole question of progression in rural
areas and ambition in rural areas is something the White Paper
does not address and it is something yet we do not have a very
good handle on.
541. I just wonder if Peter has any thoughts
on this different from David's.
(Dr Knight) I think foundation degrees are doomed
to succeed. I have got reservations about the sort of producer
culture that says that this is what people want when there is
not a lot of evidential base to support that. Foundation degrees,
I suspect, will succeed best at the moment in niche markets where
you identify a particular industry or particular activity and
are able to recruit and retain in that area. Higher national diplomas,
higher national certificates are well understood by students,
well understood by employers and are well understood by both the
universities that do them and the further education colleges,
so rebadging them may not add a great deal of value. The other
thing I have got to say is that in the last five years, we have
been through at least three policy changes in terms of the relationships
between universities and FE colleges, so part of my job description
at the moment, I think, is to isolate and insulate our further
education college partners from whatever the latest change in
government policy is because that can be quite disruptive as degrees
take three years to get through, foundation degrees two years,
so the planning timescale for a lot of higher education provision
is longer than the lifetime of a particular aspect of government
policy.
542. In response to an earlier question in terms
of developing the foundation degree strategy within each HE establishment,
Sir Howard said that he felt there was a greater need to engage
employers more in the development of that programme. Could you
articulate a best practice model, in your opinion, which would
actually achieve what I think is a very important goal of engaging
the employers more?
(Dr Knight) The difficulty in engaging employers is
that the employers are not necessarily a coherent group and they
do not necessarily know or agree what they want. The easiest employers
to engage are large, monolithic employers like in the car industry
or aerospace—
543. But that is how it has always been done
in the past?
(Dr Knight) Yes, and I must admit that at the moment
I am looking for easy wins in terms of foundation degrees. When
we have gained a bit of experience, it may be possible to move
on. We have got a foundation degree in classroom assistance, which
is working well at the moment. The employer is of course the local
education authority, large, monolithic, easy to negotiate with
and you can have the dialogue, but actually the employers are
the schools and that is much harder not least because they are
a little short of time to have that engagement.
544. Do you think it is easier for further education
establishments to engage with local employers than HE establishments?
(Dr Knight) Actually, yes. The further education colleges
have their roots more into the locality and if I look at the colleges
that I know well in Birmingham, they have a better record of a
more diverse recruitment of students than UCE has and they have
better records in terms of contact with local employers because
UCE operates over a wider canvas, so is the further education
sector in some ways better placed than the university sector if
engagement with employers is the criterion? Yes.
545. So effectively you are sort of backing
the need for greater collaboration between FE and HE so that you
can actually tap into that expertise more in terms of developing
foundation degrees?
(Dr Knight) I would like to see, from the students'
perspective, a seamless route between further education and higher
education and at the moment that seamless route is at times difficult
to introduce.
(Professor Eastwood) I would just like to make two
comments. Different parts of the country are configured differently.
My university is the second largest business in the county and
that actually may well mean that one of the areas we need to look
at in terms of foundation degree provision in terms of is some
of our own staff, but I think in terms of—
Chairman
546. Your region is one of the worst performing
in terms of students going on to higher education.
(Professor Eastwood) It is not as good as it ought
to be.
547. Evidence to this Committee from a consortium
from your region suggested it was the worst in the UK.
(Professor Eastwood) You may well find that changes
over time.
Mr Jackson: You may be allowed to charge
fees!
Chairman
548. But the Secretary of State has not named
you.
(Professor Eastwood) I sit in his constituency with
great pleasure. Actually that does go back to my point earlier
about what happens in rural areas and that is emphatically actually
not a post-18 issue. We outperform all of our benchmarks actually
as a university in terms of inclusion, reach and so forth, so
I think that is a locational question. The other point I wanted
to make, which actually does bear on where universities sit, is
that the great majority of employers within Norfolk are SMEs,
often more `S' than `M', and getting them, one, to find time to
partner is difficult and, two, getting them on the kind of timescale
Peter was talking about to articulate what their needs are, for
example, is difficult. Often theirs are the needs for the day
after tomorrow, and whether it is FE or HE we are not necessarily
the best providers of that kind of skill training, nor do I think
we should give young people or indeed life-long learners who come
into education skills which have obsolescence built into them,
so the key will be establishing the kind of dialogue, particularly
with SMEs, which enables us in the case of foundation degrees
to deliver something that of course will give short-term value
and employability, but also will give something of long-term worth
to the students who go through them.
Ms Munn
549. I would just like to come back to this
issue that David Eastwood raised in his response on this topic,
which is about an assumption, which worried me, about the cessation
of the growth in these so-called traditional degrees. Given that
that seems to be what is intended, is that what is going to happen?
(Professor Eastwood) I think it is interesting you
raise this question because we are recasting our corporate plan
and of course we have to plan in an environment where we are told
that there will not be additional student numbers for traditional
undergraduate degrees and, nevertheless, we are positioning our
institution on the assumption that policy will not fully be carried
through. I think moving in a sort of whole-hogging way towards
foundation degrees at the moment is premature. It runs ahead of
the market and I think for many students foundation degrees may
be an end in themselves, but for many others they will be a stepping
stone and we need to have the pathways to progression in place.
550. So the Government cannot stop an expansion
in three-year degrees?
(Professor Eastwood) It can because it will not fund
them and we will not get the funded places.
551. I suppose my concern about this issue was
that if we are expanding education and at the same time we are
looking at access, the implication is that those students who
currently are not going into universities from lower socio-economic
backgrounds are going to go into foundation degrees and that just
seemed wrong to me.
(Professor Eastwood) What the White Paper says is
quite interesting. Whether we think it carries through is another
question, but what the White Paper in essence says is that we
freeze participation on traditional undergraduate degrees at the
43% we have achieved. The 50% target is still there and that will
be achieved through foundation degrees and through HE/FE partnerships.
However, elsewhere in the White Paper, it says that all institutions
should widen access, so then the social mix, going back to the
discussion you had with Sir Howard earlier, in all institutions
will be adjusted, so if all of that is achieved, then the effect
will be that some of the kind of students who are currently doing
undergraduate degrees will have to register for foundation degrees,
not having undergraduate degrees available to them, particularly
if you factor in what is happening demographically over the next
six years.
552. Well, that is precisely the question I
asked to Margaret Hodge when she was before the Committee. I am
not sure I got a very clear answer on that. If that is what is
going to happen, is there evidence that some of the students who
are currently going into the three-year degrees will be better
off and would get more from, and want even to go into, a foundation
route, given that perhaps there are not that many foundation degrees
currently available and if there were more available, they may
see them as more attractive?
(Professor Eastwood) The evidence from my institution
is that, as Howard was saying, we have very high rates of graduation,
so the people, the students who are coming in to do traditional
undergraduate degrees are benefiting from them, and they are leaving
the institution with good and marketable qualifications. Our principal
partner college, and FE institution, through which we have been
trying to drive forward on foundation degrees, has struggled to
recruit on foundation degrees, so at the moment I think the issue
is that we need further to enhance the quality and appeal of foundation
degrees and, secondly, we need, as I was saying earlier, to work
on a broad front which, I would argue, goes right back to 14-plus
education and the benefits of the policy, if there are benefits,
will be experienced seven or eight years downstream, not by 2005
or 2006.
553. So given then that there is going to be
an availability of bursaries for foundation degrees, will that
be a sufficient incentive perhaps, given that tuition fees are
going to be going up, for more people to switch or for new people
to choose foundation degrees?
(Professor Eastwood) I would say that the combination
of the likely discounting in price on foundation degrees and the
availability of bursaries will do something to kick-start demand.
(Dr Knight) I may put my foot in it here, in which
case I shall attempt to retract it. Most universities are close
to capacity. In other words, the discretionary space we have got
in our buildings and our facilities is limited. When you are looking
at your corporate plan, if the Government says, "No increase
in full-time undergraduates", then, by and large, you accept
that. If you have got business opportunities elsewhere, which
could include the recruitment of international students, could
include full-cost courses, or could include CPD professional development
working with industry and commerce, that might overall contribute
better to the financial stability of the university. You have
the foundation degree and you have the educational aspirations
and you have the mission and the ethical values of the institution
and all the time your corporate-planning is a balance between
what you need in order to keep the business going and what you
want to achieve in terms of ideals and values. The ideals and
values not least in terms of how much the university is going
to get for the foundation degree is at the moment not only unclear,
but unknown, so my suspicion is that as we review our plans and
we look to position ourselves in 2006, every university will be
asking itself the question, and either they may believe in this
initiative or they may not, or it may be a good thing for widening
access, but, "If we look at the income and expenditure, what
is the balance to the university and what is the balance to the
student?" I suspect caution is going to be the approach for
the next year or so until things become clearer because there
are other business activities elsewhere which we can pursue with
greater certainty.
Mr Jackson
554. I am a bit worried about whether we are
not seeing another application of Newby's rule, that in Britain
diversity equals hierarchy and hierarchy is bad, therefore, diversity
is bad. Is there not potentially a conflict in the devising of
a foundation degree as a complete educational experience in itself
and, on the other hand, as conceived as being a preparation for
feeding into, as all our witnesses have been saying is highly
desirable, an honours degree, i.e., adding up to a five-year undergraduate
course? Is there not some tension between these two and is there
not actually something to be said for trying to conceive of these
foundation degrees as being a complete entity in themselves?
(Professor Eastwood) I am not sure it would be two
plus three. In fact I am convinced it will not be two plus three,
so the issue is whether it is two plus one or two plus two. On
the question of whether or not there is an inherent tension here,
I do not see that the tension is any greater than the tension
in devising an undergraduate programme, which for some students
will be an end in itself and for other students will be a pathway
to a higher degree and to doctoral study. That is to say, I think
we have been there before and I think we were capable of constructing
curricula which serve more than one purpose.
Chairman: I want to move on to access
to higher education.
Mr Chaytor
555. Before we go on to access, can I come back
to the point that was made right at the start about the prescriptive
nature of the White Paper and ask both of you really just to tell
us in a bit more detail about the funding base of each of your
institutions. I think in terms of UCE, Dr Knight, you mentioned
the figure of 33% from HEFCE, but that is not the total amount
of public funding to UCE, so what is the balance between your
foreign earnings, your fee income, your research income and your
HEFCE core income?
(Dr Knight) Total turnover at UCE is about £105
million. The HEFCE grant, subject to whatever Howard is saying,
is about £33 million. Our next largest income stream is contracts
with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence for
the training of nursing and paramedical staff and that comes down
to about £22 million. Now, whilst that is public funding,
that is done on a contractual basis with a legally binding contract
which takes forever to negotiate, but everybody is grown up and
it is signed and sealed by lawyers and effectively we are a private
supplier to a public body, and I can live quite well with that.
There is about £3 million from the teacher training agency,
which is effectively the same as HEFCE. After that, international
students are quite modest at £5-6 million, full-cost student
activity probably comparably, and the remainder is a glorious
hotch-potch of European funding, ERDF, assistance from Advantage
West Midlands, contracts from individual companies, 20 teaching
company schemes which are working with small and medium-sized
enterprises, so it is a hugely diverse income base that you have
to manage.
556. But over 80% of that is from public funds?
(Dr Knight) Ultimately, yes, as the economy is.
557. And in terms of East Anglia?
(Professor Eastwood) The big difference in terms of
the comparison with UCE, is that, depending on how well my colleagues
perform, but somewhere around £26-27 million will be research
income from research councils and from other research bodies.
There will be roughly £32 million next year from HEFCE with
a turnover of £120 million next year. I think it is quite
important to underscore the point that Peter has just made, that
our relationship with HEFCE, which, in my terms, is roughly about
a quarter of the total turnover of the institution, is quite different
from the relationship I have with other parts of the public sector.
You are absolutely right, that if you take us in the round, we
remain predominantly a publicly-funded institution, but actually
all my non-QR research income is through competitive bids by my
research activity staff and my relationship with both the NHS
and the TTA is a contractual one where we deliver contracts which
we may or may not deliver at a loss. We also do lots of things
on a pro bono basis of course. That means that the way
in which we manage the interface with public funding is quite
varied across the piece, right down to the way in which we structure
the institution, and I am embarking on a restructuring of the
UEA which, in part, will have to reflect the fact that 25% of
my activity is health-related, so it relates to WDC and other
health funders and contracts, but also in a rather peculiar way
to HEFCE as well. I think it would be wrong to conclude from simply
aggregating the numbers that other than the hotel side of the
business and the overseas side of the business, everything else
is broadly public funded and that it is all the same because it
is not, it is very different.
558. Accepting our different relationships with
different sources of public funding, it is the issue of prescription
in terms of the contracts with the Department of Health that UCE
need. The nature of the contract is that it is prescriptive. The
point I am trying to raise is whether it is entirely logical if
so much of your income is publicly funded that there will be different
forms of prescription that go along with that, whether it is contracts
which are individually negotiated or whether it is the core allocation
from HEFCE.
(Dr Knight) Of course one interesting thing is that
the White Paper does not affect the work that we do with the Department
of Health.
559. But it is a different form of prescription.
(Dr Knight) Yes, and it is more prescriptive in terms
of the provision of general higher education, particularly at
an undergraduate level, than it has ever been in the past, so
it is more prescriptive.
|
