Notes of Building Pathways Access to HE Resource Managers Group held at Doncaster College, Waterdale site on 5th J7134 Stoddart Building, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus on 10th JulyuneJune 2003, 10a.m to 12.

Attendance

Chris StothartRotherham College of Arts and Technology

Richard SmithSheffield College

Lynn BagshawChesterfield College

Claire HaddonRotherham Young Peoples Services

Kevan MachanDoncaster College

Rob RitchieSheffield College

Lynda KenyonBurngreave Community Learning Campaign

Gerry AgnewSheffield College

Sue RoeSheffield College

John SandersOpen College Network

Dorothy DonnisonBuilding Pathways

Judy SmithBuilding Pathways

Andrée EavesBuilding Pathways

Marienne RossBuilding Pathways

Mary BriggsGrimsby College

Dorothy DonnisonBuilding Pathways

John SandersOpen College Network

Pam Wright Doncaster College

Roy Ledger Barnsley College

Lyn BagshawChesterfield College

Chris StothartRCAT

Judy SmithBuilding Pathways

Apologies

Mary BriggsGrimsby College

Rachel BoothRother Valley College

Ed WilsonSheffield CollegeDave PickersgillSheffield College

Jenny HandleyNorth Notts College

Steve BondDerbyshire County Council

Diane BaileyDoncaster college

Kevan MachanDoncaster college

Rachel booth Rother Valley College

Chris DaviesNorthern College

  1. Welcome and Introductions

Introductions were Introduction made and Judy Smith gave a brief background to past developments. Over the last few months Building Pathways have held several meetings with partners about planning for developments in Access that reflect the changing national agenda for widening participation.

. The last meeting of the Access Group which wasn’t well attended nevertheless endorsed the idea of developing new Access initiatives. Dorothy was given the task of investigating some of the possible models already in existence which could be built on to develop a regional approach to new forms of Access.

Dorothy gave a brief overview of the models she had discovered and summarised these in the attached paper. The key points from her presentation included:

A Flexible Access system: this would build on existing programmes but recognise the credit learners have already achieved in other OCN validated learning programmes such as Adult Education type learning. NOCN recognises that 50% of credit can be brought into Access programmes however across the region a decision may need to be made about this. Dorothy suggested a maximum of 8 credits may be appropriate (6 @ Level 3, 2 @ Level 2). However the group needed to decide on the appropriateness of the credit. Dorothy suggested there is a need to have the process of using credit recognised within the validation document. Older Access programmes may not have it written in. There was a need to formalise the process otherwise it would not happen. It would respond to OCN Regulation Notes 1.11:5 which would incorporate comments on credit transfer. Such models existed in Sheffield and Hull colleges in recent validated programmes.

Discussion took place around this model. Concern had been raised at the last meeting that recognising credit might have an effect on the numbers enrolling onto Access programmes. However Dorothy had analysed Doncaster College’s student cohort and found that only a few of the learners had previous credit so any moves in this direction would in fact bring in extra students. Although only a snapshot Doncaster’s experience may mirror that of other providers. Discussion raised the following points:

What type of previous learning would count – should this be ‘kite-marked’ in some way? Should the programme have a clear link with the Access to HE programme?

Concern was expressed that if a maximum of 6 credits brought in this would leave little opportunity for other curriculum e.g. study skills and subject related study

Specific learners could be targeted e.g. use of Home Start credit or from other voluntary/community groups

Concern expressed about the funding issues. Pam Wright suggested if a learner was registered on an individualised learning programme with attached guided learning hours the funding would not be an issue of concern

It was agreed that there would be a need to identify potential students – where/who they are. It was suggested that the underlying principle of such a process would be that once the learning had finished the learner should be ready for HE. Therefore any such credit recognition would need to be individualised and appropriate to the learner and the learning provider.

Action: Dorothy to draw up a suggested paragraph which could be included in a Validation document. This would allow for a learner to embark on an individualised learning programme but also include an agreed number of credits to transfer in. If implemented the statement should be accompanied by appropriate marketing and development and monitored. There would be a need to identify the target group.

Dorothy presented the second option which is a Top-up Award. This model would be aimed at new learners who are currently not targeted/ recruited by Access providers. The learners would be encouraged to bring in previous qualifications/ experience and top up this learning to make them ready for HE. The learner would achieve an Award not an Access Certificate. This would be a smaller award of possibly 6 or 12 credits – the partners would need to decide this. Dorothy had investigated Grimsby’s ‘Fast Forward’ programme which had a similar aim. Mary Briggs gave an overview of this programme. It is classed as a ‘bridge to HE’ programme. It is a part-time programme of 2 days over 8 weeks. The students are mainly learners from community programmes nd refreshers.

Discussion around this model occureedd with the following points made:

There was a need to involve HE providers to ensure they recognised the learning

There was a need to target the learners – there was possibly people out there who currently redirected to Access which may be inappropriate.

The learners applying to nursing programmes with pervious learning may be a good example – these often had to achieve a partial Access programme in order to satisfy the University of Sheffield that they were ready for HE study.

John Sanders that such a development would fit in with national developments and perhaps inform these.

The outcome for learners was a small or medium sized Award

Action: The group agreed that the Top-Up Award was the most interesting option of the new proposals and they could see possibilities within their own institutions. It was agreed that Dorothy would develop a template of what could be included in this Award using existing units and consider the target groups and progression opportunities.

The next meeting is to be held on 10th July 2003 at Sheffield Hallam University.

  1. New Access Initiatives

Dorothy Donnison introduced the paper on the proposals for New Access Initiatives. There are five strands identified:

  1. Enhancing the Existing Access to HE Scheme
  2. New Vocational Access Routes
  1. Youth Access
  2. Smaller Access Award
  3. Advice & Guidance for HE

At previous meetings these had been discussed in some depth and Dorothy had done further development on the most popular aspects of these namely the enhancement of existing Access programmes and a template for a new Access award.

Credit Transfer Paper

Dorothy presented the paper and invited comments. The key aspect of this proposal is that learners achieving Level 3 OCN learning could bring in their credit and use it against an Access to HE certificate. Dorothy proposed the number of credits allowed to be brought in and the timescale in which the learning should have been achieved. The proposals were discussed in some detail. The key points raised included:

The length of time when previous learning undertaken of 3 years may preclude potential students. Five years may be a more appropriate time scale - this would be more accommodating to part-timers.

There would need to be a clear understanding of the programmes of learning being undertaken by learners, where its undertaken and what learning is appropriate.

The link with learning completed in community and voluntary sectors needs recognising. These may provide learning that colleges can recognise.

The issue of standard and quality of non-access learning was discussed, with a general agreement reached that any credit achieved must be viewed as being at the appropriate level.

The Initial Advice and Guidance given to learners is very important. Learners need to be aware of the relevance of their learning and to reflect on the skills and knowledge they were bringing in. It is important to sit down with learners and plan what the learner needs.

The number of credits learner could bring in was discussed at length. It was felt that up to 8 credits may be an appropriate cut off point as this was half of a Certificate and bearing in mind that most learners complete more than the minimum number this would not be excessive.

The opportunity being presented should be marketed well and should have commitment shown to it.

It is important that HEIs recognise the Access Certificate as end qualification without having to be aware of the prior credit learners bring in. There may be a need however to make HE partners aware of the initiative.

Minor amendments were made to the statement.

It was felt there is a need for partners to revisit their validation documents so it encompasses these changes. This would require a minor modification to be made.

There would then be a need to market the changes to bring in new learners.

Action: Dorothy agreed to send the statement to the Accreditation Advisors in OCN so they were aware of the partner's decision. Any minor modification would need to be made through Jackie Hadfield's Awards team in OCN. For the learners a prior credit form would need to be developed and signed by the institution and the learner. A system would need to be developed as to how this could apply. Judy Smith would follow this up when DD leaves at end of July.

Access Top Up Awards

Dorothy provided an overview of three models for a short Access award that she had researched. The first built on the work of Doncaster College who provide a pre-access programme. The second was the programme Grimsby College provided as a pre-access programme. The third was a framework for a new Access Award that Dorothy thought met the criteria colleges were looking for. The model could use the new BP units as the basis for the award. The proposed model was discussed at length. Key points raised included:

The new models could be presented as 8 or 12 credit programmes. these models fitted in with the NOCN Awards

There was a discussion about who were the target groups - people with previous part qualifications; the new AS qualifications; NVQs; other vocational qualifications; those out of study for some time but with previous qualifications; those people who may not need full Access, may want to do part time course or sub degree but would not need full Access certificate.

There may be a need for a roll-on, roll-off programme or a short summer school

Would need to be acceptable to HE partners - may be a need to pilot it with one School.

There may be an issue of how it is marketed - A level students may see it as an easier option but it has to be clear that this is an Award to pick up different learners not the same learners transferring from traditional routes - links with QAA guidance on this needs to be recognised

Dorothy asked for all partners to consider what their Award should look like

Action: It was agreed that further work needs undertaking developing the Access Award. Building Pathways would be prepared to support any developments. It was agreed the following course of action to be taken:

The group agreed to meet on 1st September for a full day workshop to discuss ideas and how to progress forward.

Group members aim to have the template completed for the workshop.

Invites will be sent out shortly requesting the information from the group in order to draw up a paper prior to the workshop.

BP to contact HE partners to invite them to the workshop

3. Community Access initiatives

There was not time to discuss the detail of Rotherham Youth Service model for a Youth Access initiative. It was agreed that this would be considered at a later date.

Linda Kenyon identified the need to consider the different needs out in the community. The people learning in communities varied in relation to age, experience and needs. The opportunities for them to progress needs to be considered. Again there was not enough time in the meeting to discuss these issues and it was hoped that this could be a focus of future meetings.

The next meeting to be held at Sheffield Hallam University as a working day on 1st September 2003.

1

g:/Shared/OCN/Pathways/Access to HE Resource Mangers/Notes10July03.doc