Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Colleges (AoC)
INTRODUCTION
1. AoC (Association of Colleges) is the
representative body for colleges of further education, including
general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and specialist colleges
in England, Wales (through our association with fforwm) and Northern
Ireland (through our association with ANIC). AoC was established
in 1996 by the colleges themselves to provide a voice for further
education at national and regional levels. Some 98% of the 425
general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and specialist colleges
in the three countries are in membership. These colleges are the
largest providers of post-16 general and vocational education
and training in the UK. They serve over 4 million of the 6 million
learners participating in post-statutory education and training,
offering lifelong learning opportunities for school leavers and
adults over a vast range of academic and vocational qualifications.
Levels of study range from the basic skills needed to remedy disadvantage,
through to professional qualifications and higher education degrees.
96% of colleges were judged satisfactory or better by Ofsted in
2004-5 for their overall effectiveness and the LSC's Learner Satisfaction
Survey showed that 90% of learners were at least satisfied with
their teaching experience at college.
2. This submission will be presented under
the three broad headings of the terms of reference of the inquiry:
— The role of universities over the
next 5-10 years.
— The structure of the HE sector.
This will be related specifically to the role
of higher education which is provided in the further education
sector.
THE ROLE
OF FURTHER
EDUCATION COLLEGES
IN RELATION
TO HIGHER
EDUCATION
3. Further education colleges' functions
in relation to HE are twofold:
— They provide 44% of all entrants
to HE, both full and part-time undergraduates in universities
and FE colleges.
— 14% of all HE learners study in FE
colleges—some 200,000 in total.
4. Traditional HE is well respected and
well established. However AoC would argue that there is a distinctive
role for FE contributing to the HE arena through the development
of level 4 and 5 programmes of study linked closely to local employer
need and demand. This would require greater flexibility in the
system, with colleges being given more freedom to respond to employer
and individual demand. We could see this linked with an incremental
approach to learning, with a blurring between stages of education,
and an expansion of a unit based approach that would allow for
part-time, staged, or highly intensive learning, consistent with
employment or other family or social responsibilities.
5. AoC see the next few months as critical
in exploring how FE's contribution can be seen as contributing
to a broader spread of HE choice and not as a potential threat
to existing HE provision.
6. The targets for participation in HE leads
us to believe that there is the need to attract the untapped market
of young people and adults that would not naturally aspire to
higher level education; these groups may already be engaged with
FE, which is well placed to take them forward.
FOUNDATION DEGREES—PROPOSALS
IN THE
FURTHER EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
BILL
7. This paper is written in the wake of
the Government's Further Education and Training Bill which, through
Clause 19, proposes that the Privy Council be able bestow the
power to award foundation degrees on further education colleges.
This would remove the current requirement for colleges to validate
their foundation degrees only via a university. AoC warmly welcomes
this proposal and see it as a valuable opportunity to expand the
numbers of young people and adults to further develop the distinctive
employer focused and locally driven foundation degrees.
8. The current validation arrangements do
not always give the sufficient flexibility that the market requires.
It is AoC's belief that most colleges expect to continue their
successful relationships with universities in delivering foundation
degrees and, as a result, few colleges will wish to apply for
Foundation Degree awarding powers.
9. However, the fact that colleges will
have the opportunity of an alternative validation route, which
has been through the stringent Privy Council and QAA procedures,
can only be viewed as a positive development and help them meet
the needs of employers and learners. Colleges look forward to
continuing their work with local employers and SSCs directly to
address the skills challenge facing the UK.
RANGE OF
PROVISION
10. The majority of HE provision in FE colleges
is funded by HEFCE and the remainder by the Learning and Skills
Council. Of the HEFCE funded provision in FE:
— 63% of students are on sub-degree
programmes (HNC/HND/Foundation Degree);
— 30% of students are on degree programmes;
and
— 7% of students are on post-graduate
programmes.
11. The most popular HEFCE funded programmes
are business and management studies, education, creative arts
and design, architecture, computer science and engineering. The
LSC funded provision includes higher level vocational qualifications
including NVQs and qualifications awarded or recognised by professional
bodies.
12. AoC would welcome the opportunity for
the sector to tailor provision to local skills demands, in effect
a widening of the purpose of HE, based on our educational objectives
of including, at Levels 4 and 5 more, economically and socially
directed learning.
13. Care must be taken that local, FE based
HE provision is neither rationed nor controlled disproportionately,
for example through the allocation of places through HE institutions.
There must be no privileging of the traditional academic route
over the new employer related route. Both are equally important
in addressing the economic competitiveness of the UK.
DISTINCTIVENESS OF
PROVISION OF
HE IN FE
14. FE excels at vocationally oriented,
skills based, learner centred provision. It is renowned for its
rapid response to employer needs, using flexible delivery models,
unitised chunks of learning, delivered locally in a variety of
settings. The design of FE in HE accommodates modern lifestyle
expectations, allowing learners to juggle family and work commitments
which is essential if the drive to up-skill the current workforce
is to be a success.
15. AoC welcomes the recognition of FE colleges'
place and contribution to the Skills Agenda. Colleges are responding
by re-defining their mission and aligning their offer to perceived
need. However, to be self-sustaining there needs to be greater
emphasis on the new curriculum and institutions need to be freed
to design and customise qualifications, as recommended by Lord
Leitch.
QUALITY OF
PROVISION
16. A Quality Assurance Agency three-year
review showed that 90% of programmes in FE colleges received "confidence"
judgements in respect of academic standards, and 99% received
"commendable" or "approved" judgements in
respect of the quality of learning opportunities (HEFCE Review
2005).
17. Given this evidence, care must be taken
to dispel myths about HE learning in FE being second rate, nor
ought there to be a hierarchy of HE providers that assumes dominance
of academic over applied learning.
18. AoC welcomes the recognition of the
quality of HE in FE colleges that the development of Centres for
HE Excellence will bring, as well as their remit for supporting
and disseminating good practice throughout the sector. However,
it is AoC's view that there needs to be provision for the specialised,
niche level 4 or 5 provision currently offered by some FE colleges,
and that excellence should not necessarily be dictated by volume
of provision alone.
DISTINCTIVENESS OF
LEARNER
19. FE is characterised by expertise with
distinctive learners and has a track record of widening participation.
It offers a range of programmes from levels 1-5 developed for
learners in the workplace, characterised by flexibility, support
systems and learning environments (including on-line) which suit
both traditional, non-traditional and the employed learner.
— 49% of learners are part-time compared
to 37% in HEIs.
— 25% of first year undergraduates
in FECs are from areas with low rates of participation compared
to 19% in HEIs.
— 48% are 25+ compared to 37% in HEIs.
— 50% are male compared to 42% in HEIs
(HEFCE Review 2005).
20. However, more needs to be done. The
numbers of HE in FE learners are static or falling. Greater awareness
of the needs of part-time learners needs to influence the mode
of delivery of HE. Advice and guidance needs to have a higher
profile, be impartial and fit for purpose. And, with 70% of the
population who need up-skilling already in work, FE needs to be
empowered and funded to exploit its existing excellent employer
links to stimulate demand.
FUNDING OF
HE IN
FE
21. FE colleges in England which provide
HE operate at a funding and institutional boundary as there is
no single organisation where this provision is their core focus.
22. The majority of provision is funded
by HEFCE in one of three ways: either directly, indirectly through
an HEI, or via a consortium of HE institutions and FE colleges.
The remainder (non-prescribed) is funded by the LSC—at a
lower rate than prescribed HE.
23. AoC would like to see agreed criteria
for the extension of directly funded HE in colleges to increase
their autonomy and release them from the legal, regulatory and
financial burdens associated with indirect funding.
24. In addition, whilst there are some examples
where indirect funding arrangements are working well there are
others where this is not the case. AoC would like to see transparent
and equitable arrangements for indirectly funded higher education
regulated by HEFCE that enables colleges to plan long term.
25. The distinction between prescribed and
non-prescribed HE is an anomaly which disadvantages one form of
provision over another, and creates a burden for colleges. It
is likely that new employer led provision will be at this HEFCE/LSC
funding boundary and AoC would like one organisation to take responsibility
for funding all HE and ending the anomaly of differently funded
prescribed and non-prescribed HE.
26. HEFCE's formula capital allowances are
driven by student numbers and consequently, because the majority
of FE colleges have less than 500 HE students, they do not provide
sufficient funds for the majority of FE colleges to develop their
infrastructure for HE provision. AoC would welcome access to capital
funding to build the infrastructure for HE in FE.
27. The LSC's strategy for HE recognises
that "in delivering the platform of skills and employability
at Levels 2 and 3, we must also invest in building the ladder
of progression and higher level skills we will need for the future"
(LSC Strategy for HE May 2006). However, the concentration on
lower levels has led to cuts in adult funding which has caused
a black hole of now unfunded provision which previously provided
a bridge to HE for adult learners. AoC would like to see recognition
of the fact that adults need a means by which to approach higher
education courses and that the steep rise in fees has depressed
the market of available courses and has led to a loss of provision.
28. There is currently great disparity in
the charging of fees for HE. Of the one hundred colleges directly
funded by HEFCE, forty-five charge top-up fees and fifty five
do not. The situation with regard to indirectly funded colleges
is more varied although exact figures are not known. AoC would
like to see more clarity in relation to fees with parity between
part-time and full-time learners in respect of fees and financial
support.
29. It is AoC's view that HEFCE's current
funding system is too inflexible, and that the current ways in
which funding is allocated preserve existing patterns of provision
by guaranteeing institutions 100% of the previous year's allocation.
This results in a system where existing modes of study predominate,
where choice for students cannot expand, and which consequently
fails the widening participation agenda. The impact of these policies
on colleges is to freeze them in relatively low volumes of HE,
particularly where the college is dependent on a partner university
to provide indirect funding.
30. AoC believes that there are strong grounds
for moving towards funding based on the basis of credit, in order
to encourage institutions to offer more flexible modes of study.
HEFCE's current funding approach is punitive in its treatment
of retention and partial completion. This discourages universities
and colleges from offering alternatives to full-time three year
degrees which, in turn, restricts choice for adult learners in
higher education. AoC welcomes HEFCE's plans to base funding on
awarded credits, although our preference would be for funding
to be based on completed credits rather than awards but we believe
that HEFCE's proposal is better than the current system.
31. Funding should be available to colleges
for HE Certificates and small credit based HE programmes on the
same basis as is available to HE institutions too enable them
to better meet the needs of employers.
THE STRUCTURE
OF HE IN
FE
32. The interface between FE and HE is insufficiently
developed in England in comparison with other countries, notably
Germany and the US, and yet this is where growth is required.
AoC welcomes the joint LSC/HEFCE strategy for implementing the
FE White Paper and for employer engagement, but more work is needed
to break down age stage barriers.
33. Currently HE in FE has too many masters:
the LSC is responsible for FE colleges as institutions but not
for most of their HE provision, only that which is non-prescribed.
34. It is subject to two quality assurance
regimes: the bulk is reviewed by the QAA, while the non-prescribed
is subject to inspection by Ofsted. AoC welcomes the move towards
self regulation which should provide greater alignment.
35. AoC's vision is however for further
streamlining within a single Quality Assurance framework and a
positive move towards this is the implementation of IQER (the
proposed new QAA method of Integrated Quality Enhancement and
Review). This uses verifiers and takes a holistic approach to
quality assurance and should produce outcomes that provide a basis
for comparison of HE wherever delivered. The longer term goal
would be to find a way of subsuming the different quality assurance
arrangements required by different agencies into a single overarching
framework that allows data and evidence collected once to be used
many times.
36. Data is currently collected in different
formats, by a range of agencies. If FE is to play a greater role
in delivering advanced education and training AoC believes more
needs to be done to explore how data collection systems might
be aligned, avoiding duplications.
37. A wide range of organisational and management
arrangements for HE exist in FE colleges. These differ in relation
to the extent of the HE provision, and the nature of the funding
relationships. Many colleges have a mixture of funding types and
are sometimes in partnership with a number of HE institutions,
with different quality assurance regimes. AoC believes that to
in order to be self-sustaining, far greater alignment of processes
is necessary, leading to reduced bureaucracy.
CHANGING THE
COHORT OF
LEARNERS
38. The declining supply of new entrants
to the workforce post 2011 and the demographic peak in the number
of young people emphasises the urgency in up-skilling and retraining
our current adult workforce. Consequently there is general recognition
of the need to shift the balance within HE away from young, full-time,
campus-based students developing and maturing as they prepare
for entry to employment, towards vocationally focused older learners.
Such learners will be increasingly employment based; juggling
work, home life and study; seeking to acquire skills and knowledge
as a route not to personal development, but to better perform
their working roles and enhance their career opportunities.
39. In this changing landscape, higher level
learning will no longer be predominantly linear. More learning
will take place over an extended timescale with individuals moving
in and out of learning, and with learners moving around the same
level, or moving between levels as needs dictate.
40. AoC is working proactively within Lifelong
Learning Networks to secure well-founded progression routes to
HE and employment. These networks combine the strengths of a number
of diverse providers, and enable learners to move between different
kinds of vocational and academic programmes, and between institutions,
as their interest, needs and abilities develop.
DEVELOPING NEW
LEARNING PATHWAYS
THROUGH DIPLOMAS
41. AoC welcomes the introduction of Diplomas
and of the involvement of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) in their
development. It views them as the natural territory of FE colleges
who have both the resources and expertise to deliver them in partnerships
with schools, and sees the potential of a coherent learning pathway
linked to a locally delivered Foundation Degree.
42. The perceived shift of the diplomas
to closer alignment with general education is seen as an opportunity
for FE colleges to offer parents and young people greater choice
and seamless progression routes from 14 years through to degree
level study via specially designed foundation degrees that could
be delivered locally and tailored to employers' needs.
43. This would provide a pathway that would
meet the needs of learners who may not traditionally aspire to
HE, both retaining them in education beyond the age of sixteen
and contributing to the Government's intention of encouraging
more young people to achieve university level education.
44. AoC would like to propose an initiative
to provide Foundation Degrees as natural extensions to Diplomas,
encouraging young people to learn incrementally with the option
of starting HE units whilst studying Level 3. Those successfully
completing Level 3 would in this model be entitled to progress
to the locally devised foundation degree.
SUPPLY AND
DEMAND
45. AoC believes there is the need for Government
investment to secure a culture shift towards continual personal
development and employer involvement. There is an assumption in
a demand led model that there is willing but latent demand for
training. AoC is yet to be convinced of this. We believe there
needs to be a balance struck between the open market place and
a situation in which reasonably stable institutions can be called
on to stimulate demand, and then respond to it. The planning landscape
for sustainability needs to have a degree of stability to allow
investment. FE is currently subject to a variety of potentially
de-stabilising and contradictory policy decisions, priorities
and targets that may stifle investment and innovation.
December 2006
| 
