Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Mixed Economy Group and 157 Group
MEG and the 157 Group are pleased to present further
comments to the Select Committee in the light of the publication
of the recent White Paper "Students at the heart of the system".
We are able, perhaps uniquely, to comment from two perspectives:
FE colleges are major providers of HE delivering around one in
eight of all undergraduate programmes. Colleges are also the major
source of initial entrants to HE providing a majority of "A"
level or equivalent entrants and significant numbers of adult
students. Each of our member organisations balances these two
roles.
SUMMARY
1. We welcome the government's acknowledgement
that FE colleges have a distinctive role to play in a more diverse
Higher Education landscape.
2. We welcome recognition of the two key barriers
preventing us from achieving the full potential of the FE sector
in delivering Higher Education—validation and the vulnerability
of franchised provision—but need more information on how
it is proposed these are addressed.
3. We are pleased that the government recognises
the importance of the wider availability of degree awarding powers
but would encourage a greater commitment towards accelerating
the ability of colleges to offer foundation and first taught degrees.
4. We welcome the increased range of providers
and consequent move towards more responsive and cost effective
provision this will stimulate. However, we also support the need
for appropriate safeguards to ensure that the quality and reputation
of English higher level qualifications are maintained.
5. We are concerned that competitive bidding
for the existing share of students will not by itself protect
the distinctive FE contribution to HE or enable it to grow. Some
earmarking of funding for different types of HE may be a better
solution.
6. We welcome the moves to make more course information
available to prospective students enabling them to make informed
choices. However, student destination information has proved difficult
to determine and we would urge caution in determining the metrics
to support this.
7. We welcome the Whitepaper's caution about
setting a minimum tariff for access to student support as this
could damage efforts to widen participation.
FE COLLEGES AS
HE PROVIDERS
Our members find much to welcome in the White Paper
in relation to the development of the role of FE colleges as providers
of HE. It clearly recognises the distinctive contribution that
FE colleges can and do make to Higher Education; it recognises
some of the barriers that prevent FE institutions doing more;
and it clearly signals the potential for the sector to play an
enhanced role in the future. We look forward to working with government
and other partners to make a reality of this expanded role.
If we are to deliver the full potential of the sector
however we need urgent action to overcome two of the barriers
that the White Paper highlights—the difficulty of competing
with universities when colleges depend on them for validating
their degrees; and the vulnerability of franchised provision to
a withdrawal of numbers by franchise partners. It is not clear
that the proposals set out so far will tackle these two issues
within the timeframe needed.
In respect of validation powers it is good that the
White Paper signals a willingness to extend the range of bodies
with degree awarding powers. We feel however that it should also
give a clearer commitment to accelerating the ability of FE colleges
to award foundation and taught first degrees in their own right.
The ability to seek validation from private sector organisations
will bring a welcome increase in competitive pressure on existing
organisations, but we should be very wary of allowing a limited
number of such bodies to dominate the field. From our work at
level 3 and below we are only too aware of the huge sums of money
taken from the education system by a small number of powerful
awarding bodies and are anxious that that should not be replicated
in the HE sector.
Freeing up the arrangements for validation will be
of little use if FE colleges are not able to access a guaranteed
stream of funding for their HE work. At the moment franchised
provision, which accounts for around 50% of the sector's contribution,
can be withdrawn by the university partner without redress. We
fear that one immediate consequence of the squeeze in numbers
at less popular universities may be to encourage further reductions
in franchising to protect the universities' own viability. This
could happen even before legislation is enacted and there needs
to be a mechanism to freeze franchise numbers to prevent this
happening.
In any event seeking to expand HE by competitive
bidding for a share of the existing HE numbers does not seem the
most appropriate way to develop the distinctive contribution that
FE colleges make. The college role should not be seen as doing
the same as universities only more cheaply but expanding the numbers
of part time students, extending opportunities for those in work
and using their links with industry to emphasise local, flexible
and work related programmes. In large part this involves bringing
in new types of student rather than repackaging the offer to traditional
undergraduates.
There is a real danger that if the demand from young
undergraduates continues to outstrip the places available there
will be a perverse incentive to offer cheaper versions of the
traditional university experience rather than develop the flexible
work focussed offer that FE is best placed to provide. To preserve
this valuable and distinctive role some earmarking of funding
for FE style programmes would be more effective than open competition.
FE COLLEGES AS
PROVIDERS OF
HE ENTRANTS
MEG and the 157 Group welcome the aspiration to put
students at the heart of the HE system and extend their choice
and influence. We see the provision of more information to students
about the experiences they can expect on their course as desirable;
the provision of information about the progression of graduates
into employment is also highly desirable though we would caution
that it is not a straightforward matter. We welcome confirmation
that for full time students there will be no up front fees and
that repayment will be linked to a student's income. It is crucial
however that sufficient resources are given to explaining the
benefits of the system to prospective students
We have reservations about the proposal to allow
unrestricted recruitment of students with AAB grades at A level.
The (possibly unintended) consequence of this may be a more segregated
system and a reduction in social mobility as students with such
high grades are less likely to have studied in institutions committed
to widening participation, including colleges. As institutions
which give a high priority to widening participation and extending
aspirations we would see any development which makes our elite
institutions appear more exclusive as damaging and undesirable.
Although many of our students progress to the most
prestigious universities it is probable that the majority of those
entrants with no previous family background in HE come through
FE colleges. Many progress to local universities which are the
ones most likely to be hit hard by a combination of falling numbers
and lower fee income. We feel that the monitoring of efforts to
widen participation should not focus disproportionately on access
to the most selective institutions but should also take account
of the overall numbers of non-traditional entrants securing a
higher education place.
FE AND A
MINIMUM TARIFF
Finally we welcome the fact that the white paper
has reservations about Lord Browne's proposal to limit HE entrants
(and thereby public spending) by setting a minimum tariff for
access to student support. We share those reservations fearing
that it would inevitably militate against those with non traditional
qualifications who are nevertheless capable of benefitting significantly
from higher education. As providers of HE a distinctive aspect
of our work is the ability to encourage wider participation through
considering a persons achievements in the round—taking into
account experience in the workplace for example. As institutions
concerned with progression into HE we would be concerned if only
those with A levels or a limited set of similar qualifications
were able to access higher level study. We would be grateful for
urgent clarification of the government's intentions in this area.
11 July 2011
| 
