Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 780-799)

WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH 2003

RT HON MR CHARLES CLARKE

  780. Will they be launched in all universities at the same time or can each university launch its own foundation degree?
  (Mr Clarke) Each university can do it in its own way, but we hope to offer a framework in which it happens.

  781. Will that be simultaneous with the demise in HNDs and HNCs?
  (Mr Clarke) I do not think so. HNCs and HNDs are very widely respected qualifications, so it is not a question simply of simultaneous demise. Precisely the work we are doing at the moment is how we coordinate that in a way that does not lead to confusion amongst potential students and employers.

  782. What will be the relationship between foundation degrees and honours degrees? There will be no progression arrangements.
  (Mr Clarke) Yes, there will be progression arrangements and, again, that is something we are specifically working on. HEFCE, as Sir Howard Newby, I think, said to you in his evidence, is very committed to the progression approach which is there. There will be the ability to progress and that we see as an important element in the degree.

  783. In the White Paper there is nothing or very little—nothing that I remember—about credit accumulation transfer progress, is that not essential if there is going to be progression from foundation degrees to honours degrees as well as essential if foundation degrees are to be portable between different universities? Given that we are talking about a different kind of student who is more likely to be changing jobs across the country, is it not critical that we have a national structure for credit accumulation transfer?
  (Mr Clarke) Yes. I would need to double-check the White Paper, but we decided that we should build on the basis which already exists in the collaboration between universities which are operating foundation degrees already and take that as the basis, rather than establishing a new validating body or whatever. But that is again one of the issues we are addressing specifically. In answer to your specific point, I strongly agree that there needs to be a credit accumulation approach which allows for transferability in the way that you describe.

  784. Does that equally apply to the existing body of honours degrees? Or does the Government intend to be more proactive in trying to get a national framework for credit transfer?
  (Mr Clarke) More difficult. More difficult. You are obviously right to raise it as you have. I have said to the QAA that I would be interested in their views on these matters but it is one of the views that we are collecting. I think that the goal of universal transferability across the UK, or at least across England and Wales, is quite a difficult one to achieve, given the history of the degrees that have emerged in wide variety of different areas. I am not certain it is desirable, actually, but certainly elements of it are desirable in what needs to happen. I do not think I would go further on that at this moment. I think the thrust of your questioning, Mr Chaytor, takes us down a very important point: that if we are going to achieve progressivity we have to do it in a way which means there is transferability of qualifications, and that point I accept.

  785. Considering the relationship between the command economy and the emerging market between the universities, if the Government establishes x-thousand places for foundation degrees and students do not take that up, how do you resolve that? At the end of the day, funding is driven by student demand, not by government diktat.
  (Mr Clarke) Indeed. That is why I said this, for me, is the single most challenging aspect of the White Paper, because if we provide for x-thousand foundation degrees and people for a variety of reasons do not take them up that will be essentially a failure of what we are trying to achieve and we would then have to reassess where we go. But I regard it as very important that we do not fail the test which you have just offered me, and that is why we are giving it the very high priority that we are, to making this happen.

  786. Would the take-up not be increased if HNCs and HNDs were automatically rolled up within foundation degrees because there is no alternative for students to choose?
  (Mr Clarke) I understand that but the phrase "there is no alternative" is one that I am keen to avoid from this point of view. I do not mean purely from the party political thing. Foundation degrees have to be attractive and wanted and desired rather than a requirement that people are forced down that course. If it ends up that people are forced to go down that route, then I think it would have been a failure. From what I have seen of the early foundation degrees, by the way, I do not think we need be in that position at all. I think some of the foundation degrees which have been developed are very exciting and very positive and people want to make them go. The commitment of employers, public and private sector employers, to the foundation degree is so important. That commitment is necessary to encourage people to want to take foundation degrees in order look at their future prospects. I will not hide from the Committee, Mr Sheerman, that this area, on which we are working extremely energetically, is for me a big test for the whole thing, because if it were to fail in the way that Mr Chaytor is asking about that would be a serious failure, and we are working very hard to avoid that being the case. I will say very positively that the welcome for foundation degrees I think has been absolutely genuine. The other day, for example, I met the Engineering Employer's Federation and they are absolutely completely up for this: they think this is very important for their industry and their business. My colleague the Secretary of State for Health and the NHS university are very, very committed to this in the whole health area. David Blunkett the Home Secretary and some of the home-oriented professions are very interested in this area. The feeling is positive. Many universities are responding very positively. I do not feel we are pushing water up hill in this area. On the contrary, I feel people want to make it happen, but the challenge for us is to make sure it does actually happen and not become an aspiration that somehow gets diverted and trickles down the mountain, to continue the metaphor. At the moment I feel quite confident about that, but I do accept it is the single biggest challenge to avoid the question you have just asked me.

  787. Finally, I think the fee for a foundation degree is two-thirds of the fee for an honours degree.
  (Mr Clarke) Not necessarily.

  788. Will that be up to the university, if they can charge variable fees for—
  (Mr Clarke) Yes. It is worth just recording that the university's ability to charge a fee also has the right to go to zero as well as the predicament you have described of always putting it up. I would make another prediction in relation to the question which Mr Sheerman raised earlier on: I think there will be some universities, even for honours degrees, which charge zero for their fees rather than £1,100 for some courses and I think that will also be true for some foundation degrees.

Ms Munn

  789. The current level of participation is thought to be 43% and the Government's commitment is to 50%. If the expansion is predominantly going to come through foundation degrees and the Government is aiming to increase the number of students from poorer backgrounds, either students from poorer backgrounds are predominantly going to go into foundation degrees or you are expecting some of the students who currently do the three-year traditional degrees (if I may describe them like that) to switch to foundation degrees. Which is it?
  (Mr Clarke) Neither. I think what I want is for people to make the choices. Here, again, I have to be careful about Mr Jackson taking note of all my side remarks in the way that he does, but, to make a side remark, I think there needs to be more serious consideration by students going into university of the type of course they want to do and what they are trying to get from it. I do think there are students currently going to do a three-year honours degree who, if we had good quality foundation degrees in the way that I was trying to imply in answer to Mr Chaytor's question, might enjoy and do better to go for a two-year foundation degree. Do I think there is some universal solution here? No, I do not. But I hope, if we can get a better range of courses and degrees, that people will be able to make better-informed choices about what is best for them. One of my criticisms with the way the system has evolved over the last 35 years is that there has been a view of the kind of university degree, the three-years honours degree, that existed when you were talking of 6% of the population which has grown and grown and grown and grown, in the way that people think it is the right thing to do when they leave school. I would say, first, there is a good case for people to use time before going to university in a variety of ways, and there is a lot of evidence that people who go in as mature students do at least as well and in many cases better than if they had gone straight from school. Secondly, there should be a better range of courses for them to look at in making their own choices—hence I am talking about diversity. In a sense, this White Paper does offer a block, saying: If you have always just gone because you have just gone because you have just gone, think again. What is the best for you in where you go? I think that is an important aspiration of the White Paper.

  790. Do you not think there might be read into it that there is some sort of incentive, particularly for poorer students, then to look at foundation degrees: it is a shorter period of time, therefore they are incurring less debt; it might be that foundation degrees are more likely to be offered in institutions which are closer to home, so they can stay at home and not incur expense. Is the possibility to do that not actually restricting choice rather than expanding it as you have explained?
  (Mr Clarke) Some people will make the argument that you have made, Ms Munn. They will say that is what we are about. All I can say is that absolutely is not the intention of the Government. I would make it more generally, actually: I think the argument that vocational education is something which is for the less bright, which is the kind of problem of our whole system, is a deeply pernicious problem of our whole system. It is rather weird when you have doctors and lawyers and engineers being trained in top quality universities on what are highly vocational courses, but, nevertheless, this message tends to be: you are either academic and you go down the academic route or you are vocational and go down the vocational route. I think that is a deeply damaging proposition. That is why I think the foundation degrees have to be intellectually challenging and demanding and the quality has to be high. We are setting ourselves, in responding, as I am, Ms Munn, to your question, some quite high hurdles to overcome, to the questions Mr Chaytor was raising about the type of degree we have, but that is where we have to go. If it were the case, for example, that foundation degrees were all concentrated in certain universities but not others and were filled by students coming from certain backgrounds but not others, I think that would be a serious weakness of what we were about doing.

Jeff Ennis

  791. Who will be the main providers of foundation degrees? Will it be HE establishments or FE establishments?
  (Mr Clarke) I expect the main providers to be HE establishments. But I think that one of the benefits of the whole reform we are talking about is to give the HE element of further education a bigger role. We currently have 11% of all higher education degrees provided in further education. I think that should expand and it would be beneficial if it did. I would welcome it if many went for foundation degrees. But if you ask me the question: Which would be the main provider? I would expect it to be higher education.

  792. You would effectively welcome work in close collaboration between HE establishments and local FE establishments.
  (Mr Clarke) Very much so. In fact, I think that is the very positive aspect.

  793. If a university took the attitude: Well, foundation degrees are beneath us.
  (Mr Clarke) If they do, I would regard that as a major failure. It actually relates to Ms Munn's point as well, because the danger is that some universities might take that view but others would not.

  794. What would you do about it of they do?
  (Mr Clarke) I would encourage all universities to provide foundation degrees to the level that we are talking about. We have here the question which Mr Sheerman raised right at the beginning: What can I do about anything with the universities because it is all at arm's length? It is not as bad as when Fred Mulley was Secretary of State for Education in the seventies, when he said, "The only thing I have any responsibility for is air raid shelters." That was his whole policy. That was his genuine point, by the way, that the Secretary of State for Education only had indirect influence rather than power.

Mr Jackson

  795. Quite right too!
  (Mr Clarke) I do not have the power to source a particular university, nor am I seeking any power to provide foundation degrees, but I do have the power to encourage high quality foundation degrees to be developed which universities will want to provide.

Jeff Ennis

  796. Do you see foundation degrees as having more appeal to more mature students than ordinary degrees?
  (Mr Clarke) Not necessarily, actually. In fact, I do not think that. I think the main thing I would say with foundation degrees is they are a major vehicle for bringing together employers and education at a higher education level in a way that has not been done so far. I do not think there is any particular reason why that should be stronger for mature students than students coming in at the age of 18 or 19.

  797. Our party has been a great advocate for lifelong learning, yet there is very little mention in the White Paper of higher education for students over the age of 30. Is that an omission?
  (Mr Clarke) That is not my intention. On the contrary, I think lifelong learning is absolutely critical. Ironically universities are already doing something in this area, with the management courses that they do and so on for particular employers, but in my opinion it is nothing like enough. When we focus on this, as we do in the teaching chapter of the White Paper, and we do mention lifelong learning in this context, I see it as a major area of expansion of what universities do, and also, by the way, a major source of income. In order to be able to do that, they have to convince the employers or the individuals we are talking about of educating themselves in that way throughout life to feel that what they are doing is valuable and worthwhile. To be quite blunt, I think universities need to do a lot more to make what they do look attractive to potential employers and individuals.

Chairman

  798. How much money are you saving by expanding from 43 to 50% via foundation degrees compared to expanding from 43 to 50% in conventional honours degrees?
  (Mr Clarke) We have done the arithmetic on that. I do not have it in front of me but I will write to you with the figure. It is not anything like as significant as people think. As I was trying to answer Ms Munn, the reason for going down that route is not principally financial but principally to get a wider variety of type of degree. I can provide the Committee with the arithmetic on that.[5]

  799. It has reached 50% in Scotland without foundation degrees. Some people would argue that you are on the one hand expanding higher education from 43 to 50% on t he cheap and others would argue with less quality of provision than Scotland enjoys.
  (Mr Clarke) Three points. First, with respect to you, Mr Sheerman, I always think that, certainly in the higher education field, comparisons between Scotland and England are somewhat misleading. If you look, for example, at cost issues, the proportion of students at Scottish universities who live at home is of a completely different order than it is in England and Wales. The whole system has evolved, with its highers and so on, in a quite different way. Secondly, the allegation will certainly be made that this is an idea on the cheap. I reject it utterly. There are people who will always say that money is the key driver in all policies. Of course money is a driver in policies, it is an important aspect, but it is not the key driver in all policies, and, in particular, on this it is absolutely not the driver. It is the answers I was giving to Ms Munn and Mr Ennis earlier on about the type of degree that we are trying to develop that is the key driver. So it is not a question of doing anything on the cheap. Less quality, again, I disagree with that, but I acknowledge the challenge which Mr Chaytor put earlier on that making sure they are both high quality and seen to be high quality is exceptionally important. If we were to fail in that, there would be a major issue that arises. There are some commentators on educational politics who think that it is all about bean counting and, therefore, if we feel we have to put up a set of degrees we will do it in a particular way. I just do not think that is the way to look at it. I think the way to look at it is: Why do we not have a more diverse provision of courses in a more diverse range of universities? so that people have more choice.


5   See Ev. p279. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 10 July 2003