House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

5. Expanding higher education

87. The expansion of the numbers of people participating in higher education is one of the primary aims of the Government's higher education policy. The White Paper says:

"National economic imperatives support our target to increase participation in higher education towards 50% of those aged 18-30 by the end of the decade. Participation in England is already 43%.
The bulk of the expansion will come through new types of qualification, tailored to the needs of students and of the economy. Our emphasis will be on the expansion of two-year work-focused foundation degrees, as they become the primary work-focused higher education qualification.
We will support employers to develop more foundation degrees focusing on the skills they really need; we will encourage students to take them by offering financial incentives for them; and we will fund additional places for foundation degrees rather than traditional three-year honours degrees.
Foundation degrees will often be delivered in Further Education colleges, and we will build and strengthen the links between further and higher education, to give students clearer progression pathways and support the development of work-based degrees. As part of this, we will streamline the funding regimes to make collaboration easier.
We will establish 'Foundation Degree Forward', a network of Universities which are leading the development of foundation degrees, both as a catalyst for the further development, a reservoir of good practice, and to provide a validation service for foundation degrees offered in further education, so that students can be completely confident about their quality.
We will also encourage other sorts of flexible provision, which meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body, by improving more support for those doing part-time degrees, and supporting the development of flexible "2+" arrangements, credit transfer, and e-learning." [112]

88. The Government is explicit in saying that it sees expansion as requiring different forms of higher education:

"…we do not believe that expansion should mean 'more of the same'. There is a danger of higher education becoming an automatic step in the chain of education—almost a third stage of compulsory schooling. We do not favour expansion on the single template of the traditional three-year honours degree."[113]

The White Paper argues that expansion needs to be of the appropriate quality and meet the needs of the economy, employers and students, and that the specific need is for more work-focused degrees.[114]

Expansion through foundation degrees

89. One of the main concerns of those we spoke to on this issue was that the Government's emphasis on expansion largely through foundation degrees was a policy that had not been thought through properly. Dr Copland of the University of Westminster told us:

"What I think is not picked up adequately here is the fact that one can achieve widening participation, opening up of opportunities through a series of routes, and putting them all simply down the re-branded foundation degree [route] may not actually meet the needs of the economy or the aspirations of the students… Different students and different parts of the economy will have different approaches to this and I think that laying down a single template is not necessarily going to answer the need that we have."[115]

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said that "It is the signals that employers give to potential students that will determine whether they think that the foundation degree route is a valuable route and, at the moment, I think the jury is out on that".[116]

90. Dr Brown of SCOP echoed that thought:

"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…and therefore we would want to proceed on parallel fronts, and there is a danger…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".[117]

91. Sir Howard Newby also saw the role of employers as being vital:

"I think that foundation degrees are developing rather well in the face of some of the scepticism which is apparent about them in some quarters. I think that the real issue is engaging employers with foundation degrees. They have an absolute right to be involved in the design of the curriculum for foundation degrees and we have found the engagement of employers really rather patchy."[118]

Sir Howard also pointed out one of the difficulties that faces the Government in its efforts to encourage wider participation in higher education by means of foundation degrees is that "funding does follow student demand. Therefore, if there is not sufficient student demand to fill foundation degree places, we will switch that funding into other forms of higher education provision, as I think we should."[119]

92. The University of Birmingham expressed its doubts about expansion through foundation degrees:

"It would be unfortunate…if [the 50% target] were to be achieved through the expansion of foundation degrees and not the internationally respected, universally understood, tried and tested, honours degrees. All the evidence is that what students want is access to honours degree programmes offered by the leading research-led universities."[120]

93. Professor Eastwood emphasised the problems in seeking all expansion from a new qualification:

"I think it is probably unfortunate that the White Papers 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".[121]

Professor Trainor also doubted the wisdom of this approach, and expressed concern that the policy implied a restriction of choice for those from non-traditional backgrounds coming into higher education:

"I think that it would be odd…if all of our expansion were to occur solely through foundation degrees; it does not seem to me logical that the new students coming into the sector who are not in higher education at all should have their choices narrowed in that way. So I would see foundation degrees as one part of expansion but by no means the whole."[122]

Chris Weavers from the NUS made a similar point:

"We do not support [foundation degrees] at all in the context of a means of delivering the 7%; it is an extra degree of flexibility which is welcome, but it should not just be a way of achieving the 50% target."[123]

Progression from foundation degrees

94. The Government is keen to establish foundation degrees as qualifications in their own right.[124] One way in which it plans to do that is by removing the requirement that was placed on foundation degrees as piloted that, to receive HEFCE funding, they must allow a successful student to continue on to an honours degree at the same institution. Margaret Hodge told us the question was:

"if we wish to establish foundation degrees as degrees in their own right as appropriate for the labour market, should that compulsory feature…remain so? Our current thinking…is that probably it should not remain as a compulsory feature which then determines whether or not the course gets funded by HEFCE. It does not mean the individual cannot move on, but that aspect of the foundation degree will cease to be a feature which [determines] whether or not the course gets funded."[125]

95. This question of progression is extremely important if the intellectual rigour of foundation degrees is to be established, and we asked the Minister to provide further clarification of the Government's position. In a letter sent after our meeting she told us:

"Originally, there were restrictions on the timescale for progression from foundation degrees on to an honours degree—specifically, it was a requirement that the progression had to take place within one and a third years of completing the foundation degree. This did not sit well with the idea that people should regard these degrees as qualifications in their own right, or with our wish to make higher education something that is flexible enough to meet different individuals' learning needs. We are therefore giving universities increased flexibility locally about the arrangements for progression to an honours degree."[126]

In that letter she also emphasised that all those who are awarded a foundation degree should receive full credit for their work, and that "we are clear that it is important that there is an articulation between foundation degrees and honours degrees for those with the desire and ability to benefit".[127]

Higher education in further education

96. There is an expectation that many people taking foundation degrees will do so at further education colleges. Dr Copland said

"I think that foundation degrees actually provide a very good route for strengthening partnerships between HE and FE and I think we will see more of that happening. Certainly my own university is doing this and I think almost every other university in the country will be doing this."[128]

Dr Michael Thrower, Principal of Northbrook College in Sussex and Chair of the Mixed Economy Group of further education colleges, which recruits significant numbers of students working for higher education awards, said that

"there are tremendous opportunities for our types of institutions, providing we can get rid of some of the bureaucratic hurdles that exist…. I think local education has a real part to play, and not just because it is cheaper. It is because a lot of our students progress through vocational routes, where they feel comfortable in that environment."[129]

97. The White Paper supports the growth of higher education provision in further education colleges, but cautions that it must be of a high quality:

"it will be important that any expanded provision is of the high quality that we expect from higher education. We believe that structured partnerships between colleges and universities—franchise or consortium arrangements with colleges funded through partner HEIs—will be the primary vehicles to meet these aims and will deliver the best benefits for learners."[130]

It does, however, acknowledge that there may be some circumstances where direct funding would be appropriate and says that these will be considered by HEFCE on a case by case basis.[131]

98. Dr Thrower was concerned about the possible consequences of these arrangements:

"the suggestion here that our direct funding from HEFCE might be under some kind of threat as a group would worry me greatly because one of the ways in which my own group has developed its courses is to be able to have the long-term planning that is required to set these degrees and sub-degrees in motion. You do not often get that with a relationship with a local HEI and the reason being that the local HEI has its peaks and troughs in funding and, of course, one of the first things that will go will be the relationship funding…with the further education college."[132]

He added that "I fear that some of the nonsense, like being under two different assessment inspection regimes, being under two different funding regimes, not having access to capital funding, all of those kinds of nonsense will actually frustrate the excellent developments that are contained in the White Paper".[133]

99. Concern about higher education in further education colleges being funding through higher education institutions was also voiced by the Association of Colleges:

"The Association does…have concerns about the increased steer towards funding of higher education in colleges through partner Universities. As the establishment of Foundation Degree Forward recognises, not all FE Colleges have found willing University partners. Indirect funding of HE in FE Colleges also removes the autonomy of colleges to quickly respond to identified local need and may hamper development of the flexibly delivered and locally available higher education provision necessary to widen and increase access to higher education."[134]

Conclusions and recommendations

100. The last three issues dealt with in the White Paper, expansion of higher education, fair access, and funding for universities and student support are intimately linked. Expansion in the proportion of those aged 18 to 30 participating in higher education to 50% will mean more people coming into higher education from non-traditional backgrounds, and the factors that will determine whether that target is achieved do run wider than the issues addressed in this section. In its proposals for expansion, the Government concentrates on foundation degrees as the primary work-focused qualification, and so do we; but much of the section on access also addresses issues that relate to expansion of the sector.

101. The 50% target is, so far as we can judge, an arbitrarily chosen Government target. Indeed, if one looks at participation in higher education over a lifetime and not just between 18 and 30, then the proportion is already over 50%[135]. Nevertheless, there is scope for growth in higher education because there is a need in the economy for more highly skilled people. A number of our competitor countries already have participation at the 50% level, as does Scotland.

102. The Government has created problems for itself by insisting that it wishes to see expansion from 43% participation to 50% participation mainly by an expansion in foundation degrees. This has generated some scepticism, with foundation degrees being seen in some quarters as a means to ends other than the opportunity to study for a potentially valuable new qualification. Dr Brown, for example, described foundation degrees as "a solution looking for a problem"[136] and speculated that they were being promoted because the Treasury considered that achieving 50% participation in higher education through honours degrees would be prohibitively expensive.[137] It has also given rise to the concern that the Government hopes to encourage those from non-traditional backgrounds to undertake foundation degree courses regardless of whether that is the most appropriate form of study for a particular student's interests and abilities.

103. Another problem for the Government in pursuing its stated aim of expanding the higher education sector though the medium of foundation degrees is that it is not in a position to control demand in the way the White Paper implies. If students wish to do honours degrees rather than foundation degrees then, as Sir Howard Newby told us, the funding will go to honours degrees.

104. The Secretary of State described the establishment of foundation degrees to us as "the single biggest challenge we have to implement the White Paper…having a credible foundation degree programme is exceptionally important".[138] He also told us that

"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…I do not think we need be in that position at all."[139]

He added that he thought "there are students currently going to do a three-year honours degree, who, if we had good quality foundation degrees…might enjoy and do better to go for a two year foundation degree".[140]

105. Given that the Government wants expansion to happen through foundation degrees, and given the Government's widening access agenda, there is a danger that foundation degrees will become degrees solely for students from poorer, non-traditional backgrounds, thus reinforcing social stratification in higher education, not weakening it. The Secretary of State clearly would not welcome that outcome, but if expansion is to be achieved solely through foundation degrees, that may be the reality.

106. In any event, we believe that it is unnecessary for the Government to attempt to force the achievement of the target. There is a momentum driving applications which will mean that the 50% will be met. A recent paper from the Higher Education Policy Institute suggests that the proportion of 18-year-olds with two or more A levels will continue to increase and may reach 46% by 2010. That, coupled with population increases, means that demand for undergraduate places will rise by between 180,000 and 250,000 by the end of the decade.[141] The report concludes:

"If increased undergraduate demand proves to be as high as 250,000, then this alone will bring the [Initial Entry Rate] close to the Government's 50% target, without any further action on the part of the Government—there would be no need for a policy of 50% or any other figure, as natural demand will ensure achievement of this figure".[142]

107. This potential explosion in demand sits uneasily with the Government's plans for expansion in student numbers to 2005-06. The grant letter from the Secretary of State to HEFCE in January provided for 14,000 more places this year, 19,000 in 2004-05 and 23,000 in 2005-06, but with the proviso that all those places should be for foundation degree courses.[143] Unless the Government allows the funding of more honours degree places, there is going to be considerable unmet demand for places in higher education from people with a minimum of two A level passes.

108. We believe that it is a mistake for the Government to have made such a strong link between the move to 50% participation and foundation degrees. It appears to be another illustration of the Government's tendency to over-prescriptive management of higher education.

109. Foundation degrees may go on to be popular and successful with students and employers, particularly if they are relevant to particular jobs and careers and if they improve employability. However, the association being made between the ambition to grow to 50% participation and the expansion of foundation degrees could undermine their credibility. Foundation degrees should be allowed to take their place in the portfolio of higher education qualifications without being burdened with the achievement of this target.

110. We look forward to the Government's detailed proposals for the development of foundation degrees which the Secretary of State told us should be available in the summer.[144]

111. It is clear from the evidence we heard that the contribution of further education colleges will be important to the success or otherwise of foundation degrees. The Government should help the expansion of higher education in further education colleges by simplifying funding procedures and ironing out anomalies in the funding mechanisms, and in inspection and assessment regimes.

112 The Future of Higher Education, pp 57-8. Back

113 ibid, para 5.8. Back

114 ibid, para 5.9. Back

115 Qq 181, 183. Back

116 Q 181 Back

117 Q 355 Back

118 Q 461 Back

119 Q 460 Back

120 Ev 245, para 5.1. Back

121 Q 540 Back

122 Q 674 Back

123 Q 345 Back