Memorandum submitted by the Mixed Economy
Group of Colleges (MEG)
The Mixed Economy Group of Colleges ("MEG")
represents colleges making a significant contribution to the delivery
of Higher Education, alongside their Further Education offer.
All MEG members are constituted as Further Education Corporations
(FECS). The MEG Mission Statement is included at the end of this
submission.
1. THE ROLE
OF UNIVERSITIES
OVER THE
5-10 YEARS
The terms of reference for this enquiry refer
to "the Higher Education sector", of which MEG member
colleges, and other colleges, form a part. We therefore believe
that the issues arising are more properly addressed in the context
of higher education and higher level skills rather than in terms
of one particular element of that sector irrespective of how dominant
the institutions comprising that part of the sector might be.
The following points are made in response to
those raised in the terms of reference:
— What do students want from universities?
Much of the debate to date about student experience has taken
as its start point the traditional three year full time undergraduate
experience. Colleges offering Higher education serve the needs
of students whose expectations both of the experience and what
higher level qualifications can do for them may be different.
Although it is always difficult to generalise about so diverse
a sector, students choosing to study HE in FECs will have one
or more of the following characteristics. They wish to study close
to their home to maintain existing social, faith or family links.
Students may thus not look to their HE provider for social or
sporting facilities but will regard study in the same way their
contemporaries regard employment. For many part time employment
will not only be an economic necessity but also a means to build
a future career in a related field. The internal progression opportunities
offered by colleges encourage many students studying vocational
qualifications at Level 3 to stay on to continue their studies
in the same field at a higher level. Colleges have a larger proportion
of part time students and mature students when compared with other
providers. Lower fees may encourage students who would otherwise
be debt averse and see this as a reason not to continue their
studies. Finally, most students studying in FECs have a clear
vocational direction and see higher level qualifications as an
important milestone in building a career. MEG therefore believes
that there is room for wider definitions of what constitutes an
appropriate student experience. The needs of mature students and
older learners generally should not be forgotten. The Leitch Report
and its consequences will focus attention on the needs of those
adults currently in employment. There are others who either plan
a return to the workforce or who seek higher qualifications for
career development or promotion. Colleges and HEIs must work with
employers to ensure that the challenges presented by this group
are met. To be truly effective, Lifelong Learning in Higher Education
will need to have the flexibility to offer higher level qualifications
to adults at the most appropriate time and place for them.
— What do employers want from graduates?
As indicated above, colleges have a higher proportion of part
time students than most HEIs. They also have long experience in
delivering vocational courses and working at local level with
employers. MEG members understand the demand from employers not
only for high levels of specific skills but also personal development
skills such as team working, presentation, customer/colleague
awareness and leadership. We believe these "employability
skills" have been under developed in many aspects of HE design
and delivery. MEG also believes that colleges have a significant
part to play in sustaining the skills employers need to make their
enterprises efficient and effective, particularly in higher level
technical or specialist roles which may not otherwise attract
new graduates.
— What should the Government and
society want from Higher Education? Given the nature of their
curriculum offer, MEG colleges are committed to the delivery of
high quality courses at local and regional level. Although some
colleges actively recruit internationally, local students and
local employers are key markets for all. The college focus on
widening participation and work related skills means that research
does not figure prominently in the offer as a prime role. MEG
understands and supports the role of universities in this important
aspect of Higher Education. We believe that the roles are complimentary
and not mutually exclusive. Changes to the 14-19 curriculum will
require innovative approaches by all providers of HE to ensure
that progression pathways are clear and understood by all of those
involved. MEG believes that a well ordered and economically successful
society needs a higher proportion of its citizens to have the
confidence and involvement which higher level skills encourage.
We therefore believe that increased participation in higher education
will have positive benefits for social inclusion and individual
and national prosperity.
2. UNIVERSITY
FUNDING
— Is the current funding system
fit for purpose? MEG understands the need to make changes
to the funding of higher education by way of increased fees to
students and employers. However, there is a risk that fear of
debt may discourage individuals from underrepresented groups or
those individuals who are the first in their family to consider
Higher Education. MEG believes that resources should continue
to be targeted in this direction to ensure that the aims of widening
participation and social inclusion are fulfilled. Indeed, pressure
on those resources may imply a much greater degree of targeting
and prioritisation. With regard to fees, it is unlikely that MEG
members will seek to increase fees significantly if the cap is
removed. Indeed, most members have set fees at a lower level than
the current maximum, accompanied by generous bursary schemes.
With regard to employed students, MEG would support initiatives
to address skill shortages particularly at local and regional
level. The conclusions of the Leitch Report reinforce our belief
that the need for skills at Level 4 and 5 remains crucial and
could be addressed by government initiatives targeted at this
level, perhaps by specific actions to encourage employers to support
Foundation Degrees. Both individuals and employers should be encouraged
to see the cost of higher level skills as an investment and not
a burden.
3. THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE OF
THE HE SECTOR
— Is the current structure of the
HE sector appropriate and sustainable? MEG welcomes the proposals
in the Further Education and Training Bill to extend the power
to award Foundation Degrees to some colleges. We believe that
this reflects both the current situation and the need for a more
diverse and responsive sector. If granted, the introduction of
these powers could see a welcome and sustainable change in the
landscape of the HE sector. In this new scenario, existing universities
could continue to develop their existing roles in research, overseas
recruitment and Honours degree delivery. Colleges and other HEIs
which choose to follow a similar pattern, perhaps with college
partners, would concentrate on widening participation amongst
those for whom the current structure is unattractive and providing
flexible industry related learning in the workplace and off the
job to encourage individual development. The sector would thus
have two complementary segments, each focussing efforts in the
area best suited to its mission and ambitions.
— Is the current structure and funding
affecting the growth of HE in FE and part-time study? As part
of recognising the equal but different role for HE in FE, colleges
expect that funding will be fair and that colleges will receive
the same funding for the same work. Issues have been raised in
the past about the different approaches to capital funding adopted
by the two funding bodies. We understand that those bodies are
considering how best to address the issue so as to ensure that
HE development can be supported by an appropriate level of capital
investment. Although MEG members are directly funded by HEFCE
for much of their provision, funding is also sourced via "indirect"
arrangements with partner universities. MEG supports proposals
outlined in a recent consultation exercise undertaken by HEFCE
to ensure that all such arrangements are transparent and recognise
the contribution of both parties. Many part time students, particularly
those who are first time HE learners, will benefit from more flexible
models of delivery and hence funding. For example, patterns of
work and career seldom follow traditional academic patterns or
expectations. Such students may wish to take study breaks as the
demands of work put pressure on time and may wish to combine work
based learning with off the job elements. A modular or unitised
approach is best suited to adapt to these patterns and should
be encouraged by changes in the funding and curriculum delivery
model.
— How important are HE in FE and
flexible learning to the future of HE? MEG members support
the development of the role of HE in FE as a vital element in
the HE landscape. This development is seen as complimentary to
existing provision and not necessarily competing. MEG believes
that the challenge for all of those involved is to widen and increase
participation and not to compete for market share. With regard
to flexible learning, there are real difficulties in using methodologies
designed to support traditional patterns of attendance and learning
to support the opportunities offered by new Information and Communication
Technologies. MEG believes that a review of the funding approach
for this aspect of delivery is overdue.
— The role of the Government. MEG
believes government has a clear role in supporting wider participation
in Higher Education amongst groups currently underrepresented.
Given the financial pressures on the system, it is unlikely that
a completely unrestricted market would encourage such participation
and therefore government intervention should continue, perhaps
with the tighter focus referred to above. With regard to employers
and skills, the same principle should apply, with targeted intervention
in strategic areas.
The Mixed Economy Group would be pleased to
provide further information or clarification of any of the points
made above.
|
