Written evidence submitted by the Mixed
Economy Group
1. SUMMARY
This submission is from the Mixed Economy Group of
FE Colleges (MEG). It focuses on our view of the future shape
of HE in England and thus our thinking on the content of the HE
White Paper. We see a distinctive role for FE colleges in the
delivery of HE and we set out our thinking in the form of a Summary
statement and accompanying evidence.
1.1 About the Mixed Economy Group
The Mixed Economy Group of colleges represents those
Further Education Colleges which have a significant, established,
strategic and developmental role in the provision of Higher Education.
Member colleges focus on the complementary aims of widening participation
amongst groups and individuals currently under-represented in
Higher Education and working with employers to ensure that higher
level skills are developed and recognised in the workplace. There
are currently 39 colleges in MEG membership.
2. OUR OVERALL
RESPONSE TO
THE TERMS
OF REFERENCE
FOR THE
INQUIRY
(a) The conclusions of the Browne Report and
the content of the Government's proposed White Paper on Higher
Education (including the Government's proposals for widening participation
and access)
2.1 The Mixed Economy Group welcomes many aspects
of the Browne Report, in particular the opportunities for a more
diverse HE landscape which can respond to the needs of learners
with differing aspirations and expectations. We believe it is
essential that the systems and structures for the design and delivery
of HE are made more open and accessible and not simply derived
from the traditional model based on three year full time honours
provision. As FE Colleges, MEG members enroll students from their
local communities who might not otherwise be able or willing to
study. They provide higher level skills qualifications in a range
of vocational disciplines to support local employers. Colleges
also offer value for money by focusing on teaching and learning,
with smaller class sizes and longer student contact hours. Colleges
also understand the needs of students for support in their learning
and offer a real alternative to a "traditional" HE experience.
Part time and mature students feature strongly in the college
offer.
2.2 In terms of promoting student progression to
HE, colleges play a major role in the social mobility agenda shared
by all political parties. Some colleges have progression rates
of 33% for students moving from the college's own Level 3 provision
(including a high proportion in Vocational disciplines) to college-based
HE. Given that the majority of these students do not come from
families with a tradition of University or Higher Level education,
this is a major contribution to local social and economic development.
2.3 MEG supported many of the original conclusions
of the Browne Review. We have always sought a level playing field
with other providers of HE and many of the proposals could have
brought that closer. The removal of Student Number Controls would
allow those of our members who cannot, under current constraints,
meet a growing demand for local HE courses to do so in a cost
effective manner. It also did away with the concept of direct
and indirect funding and thus many of the limitations imposed
on us by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. For example,
indirect funding or "franchising" leaves Colleges reliant
on Universities not only for the validation of their higher level
courses but also for determining the proportion of HEFCE funding
which will pass to the point of delivery at the college and hence
to the student. Whilst we disagreed with the concept of a tariff
for those seeking admission to HE without UCAS points as we believed
this could discriminate against mature students, those in employment
and those with vocational qualifications, we understood the need
for a levy on fees above £6,000 and the contribution that
this would make to the funding of HE.
2.4 However, we do see a role for continued state
funding of HE, across the board, perhaps at a reduced level. We
accept the economic realities facing Government but would prefer
to see these addressed by greater acknowledgement of what HE in
FE can offer when compared with other providers of HE. We also
see state funding as a valuable means of stimulating economic
development.
The HE White Paper could do this, by recognising
our strengths and freeing us from the present controls. These
reflect the existing HE landscape: in order to meet the needs
of 21st century students,
Government needs to look at different delivery models. Colleges
are well able to deliver HE, but need to do so unfettered by current
limitations and constraints. These are no longer relevant.
2.5 At the heart of many of these limitations is
a perception that the quality of HE in FE is somehow in doubt.
This is not the case. The quality of the HE delivered in colleges
is not in question - our QAA IQER judgments are good and we deliver
in a cost-effective way.
2.6 MEG therefore anticipates a greater role for
colleges of FE in providing higher education, building on these
strengths. Our reasons are set out in more detail in our Supporting
Commentary.
(b) The role and future of state funding in
Higher Education.
2.7 MEG has concerns that the new fees regime could
act as a disincentive to students drawn from backgrounds historically
underrepresented in Higher Education. Although the impact of new
Access Agreements and National Scholarship Funds cannot yet be
judged, there are concerns that the inevitable bureaucracy which
surrounds all such schemes will act as a further disincentive
for such students. We believe that there continues to be a role
for the state in supporting disadvantaged students with the ability
to benefit from HE. 1.31 There are also issues around arrangements
for part time students. It is proposed that students are able
to access support when studying at "25% intensity" (it
is assumed this will be defined by the pro rata number of credits
studied i.e. 30 credits per annum.) This is a relatively low level
and as such is likely to include much of the provision which is
currently delivered part time. The financial implications of this
are unknown. In addition, removal of the HEFCE Teaching Grant
is likely to result in significant increases in the fees charged
to students. The relatively high level of fee support under the
current fees regime means that the price to students (and their
employers) can be maintained at lower levels.
2.8 It is also uncertain as to how employers will
be able to pay the fees of their employees without incurring a
penalty for early repayment. Such a penalty would be perverse,
given the drive to encourage employers to assume financial responsibility
for their employees' training.
2.9 MEG understands the pressures on public funding.
However, some of the implications of the new funding approach
carry significant risk that students from widening participation
backgrounds will be more reluctant to participate.
3. SUPPORTING
COMMENTARY
3.1 MEG colleges offer high quality HE provision
and also a rapid-response to employer needs for higher-level skills.
They do this as a result of the particular nature of their staff
structures, the varied backgrounds of their staff, their approach
to teaching and learning and their culture of employer engagement
at L2 - L4. All of these factors combine to enable them to offer
value for money to both learners and employers.
3.2 The Student Experience
3.2.1 The level and quality of support for non-traditional
HE learners is much more intensive and specialised than that found
in conventional HEIs. The support structures continue through
from FE and can remain in place for the duration of each student's
higher-level study. The emphasis on retention and achievement
is much more pronounced than in HEIs.
3.2.2 Student retention and success has a much higher
profile with course management teams that deliver HE in FE, due
to the degree of internal and external scrutiny driven by Ofsted
Inspections in all other aspects of their work. The same approach
is carried through to HE provision.
3.2.3 Lower staff costs allow the delivery of more
contact hours. Teaching and learning is the core purpose of most
HE in FE and not Research, as in many HEIs.
3.2.4 With regards to learner progression into employment
or up skilling, FECs and the students who choose to study there
place a distinct emphasis on jobs and employability for graduates,
usually aligned to local job markets. Promotion and career progression
are regarded as important for those already in work but studying
part-time
3.2.5 Only HE in FE will provide the capacity and
expertise to ensure the increased progression from the massive
expansion in the Apprentices programmes from 14+.
3.3 Approaches to learning and teaching
3.3.1 Responsive, dynamic timetabling and access
to skilled staff employed on flexible terms and conditions enables
FECs to address market needs rapidly.
3.3.2 Like some HEIs, FECs also work closely with
Chartered Institutes and other professional bodies, thereby ensuring
that course content is always up-to date and acting as a bridge
between employees and relevant bodies in terms of CPD. In many
cases colleges prepare students for the professional exams of
these bodies via courses of Non Prescribed HE. The industry-active
status of many PT FE staff enhances the impact of this delivery.
3.3.3 In certain institutions the higher skills offer
clearly helps to fill regional skills gaps that HEIs are unable
or unwilling to address. The currency of the HE in FE offer in
the form of Foundation degrees is strong: it is subject to annual
review and regular updates, ensuring that it meets the needs of
a changing job market.
3.3.4 In the North East, as in the South West, it
is the FE sector which is addressing HE cold spots, through the
provision of a range of vocational courses which can be pursued
on a full time, part-time or distance learning basis.
3.4 Employer Engagement
3.4.1 FE Colleges work with employers: this is part
of their identity and comes from a long tradition dating back
in many cases to the early years of the last century or earlier.
For much of their history they have worked with part-time as well
as full time adults, and are aware of the particular needs of
those who are learning whilst earning.
3.4.2 Crucial to this is the degree of confidence
that employers have in their local colleges. This is hard-won,
and reflects a heavy investment in time by business support staff,
tutors and assessors, who all nurture the HE/employer relationship.
The proven ability of FECs to re-tool to meet new demands rapidly
and to a high standard maintains this crucial factor.
3.4.3 Finally, Apprenticeship numbers are set to
increase significantly. A key role for colleges will come in ensuring
that routes exist to higher level technical qualifications for
the young people and adults who are recruited to this scheme.
It is unlikely that HEIs will have the staff expertise to rise
to this challenge, particularly in areas where there is not a
tradition of higher-level skills based qualifications.
3.5 Staff Structures
3.5.1 A high level of staff-student contact time
is a feature of HE in FE:
Incorporation in 1992 enabled colleges to employ
staff on a range of contracts, and thus tailor teaching and learning
arrangements to meet student needs. Part- time staff who are current
practitioners in their field provide a significant proportion
of the teaching staff and many teach at HE level. All full-time
teaching staff are employed on FE terms and conditions, which
require (on average) 22 hours per week of timetabled teaching.
Few are recruited solely to teach at HE level, with the result
that most work across the college in their subject area and facilitate
the progression of learners from lower to higher levels of study.
3.5.2 FECs teach year round and outside of normal
working hours. Despite their varied backgrounds, staff have a
shared commitment to teaching and learning, which is viewed as
the prime activity of all college staff at both FE and HE level.
3.6 Staff Backgrounds
3.6.1 HE in FE staff do not always enter teaching
directly from an academic background. Most have relevant industrial
experience, giving them immediate credibility with employers working
within the same sector. They are able to contextualise the more
academic learning undertaken by students, helping them to see
the point of theoretical components in largely vocational courses.
3.6.2 FECs are able to recruit experts in their field
when needed. The focus is on recruiting staff with current and
credible skills rather than using a large component of the college
budget to fund staff to undertake academic research. College teaching
staff are recruited primarily as teachers and almost all have
teaching qualifications, this being a requirement for employment
as a teacher within the FE sector. Discussions with the NUS have
demonstrated that HE in FE students value teaching skills.
3.6.3 An HE in FE professional is emerging, who is
at the cutting edge of his/her profession and has expectations
in terms of CPD but wishes to teach rather then focus on traditional
academic research.
3.7 Value for money
3.7.1 Colleges have a lower cost base. All of their
resources are devoted to teaching and student support. College
staff are teachers (trained as such as a condition of service),
not researchers, and they develop their skills accordingly. College
resources are directed towards the success of their students,
without the distraction of primary research or the need to publish
papers. Because of the greater number of hours of student class
contact time, the flexible approaches taken to staffing by colleges
and lower salary and facility costs, college-delivered HE provision
offers better value for money for all concerned.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The role of Colleges in the delivery of HE can be
summarised as:
— Working
locally with communities and employers.
— Providing
progression routes for students from FE level 3 Vocational programmes
to higher technician levels, for both full-time students and part-time
students in employment.
— Employing
tutors and other professional staff who are often actively employed
elsewhere, undertaking relevant professional/higher technical
skills and activities which can be contextualised into the teaching/learning
process.
— A student
experience which values good teaching and tutor support.
— Delivering
the majority of apprenticeship programmes across the country.
They are therefore best-positioned to develop and deliver progression
routes to higher-skills development locally.
— Responding
rapidly to the needs of employers and government when resourced
to do so.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to develop this established position, the
HE White Paper needs to address the following:
— More
flexible approaches to funding, recognising that one size does
not fit all for HE study and that local study, without the burden
of debt, will be an attractive proposition for some non-traditional
HE learners.
— More
direct funding for Colleges, as suggested by the Browne Review,
so that the amount of resources spent on unnecessary inter-institutional
bureaucracy can be minimised and funds devoted to where they are
best used to support learning.
— Changes
in the rules preventing Colleges working in consortium or franchise
arrangements with other Colleges. Economies of scale can then
be increased and partnership working developed without the need
to engage closely with HEIs over provision and students with which
the HEIs are often unfamiliar.
— A similar
approach to consortium working for the powers afforded under the
Further Education and Training Act, 2007.
— Amending
existing legislation in order to enable colleges to respond to
employer needs more rapidly by offering funded modules or units
of provision, as HEIs are currently able to do.
— Building
a strong College HE offer which adds to the diversity of the new
HE sector.
21 March 2011
| 
