PARTNERSHIP FOR PROGRESSION : A HEFCE CONSULTATION
At the end of 2001 HEFCE published a consultation document on new proposals for increasing and deepening access to higher education through partnerships between schools, FE colleges, training providers, employers and universities. These proposals are called “Partnerships for Progression”. Below are NATFHE’s responses to the consultation questions.
(WP : widening participation)
1 Do you agree there is a case for an initiative on the lines proposed in order to meet the government’s participation target?
NATFHE is extremely supportive of initiatives to increase participation in higher education, especially by those in lower socio-economic groups, and from other groups currently underrepresented in HE. However we have a number of caveats. The Government’s “50%” target has to be treated with some caution, as it is not yet clear exactly what it means in terms of experience of HE. In our view increasing participation should be based on offering a broad range of higher education to prospective students, and in particular we would want not want to see workplace learners recruited on an overly narrow basis, solely into HE programmes designed in relation to their existing employment. Whilst we support measurements of HE which recognise the value intrinsic in the experience, not simply in the acquisition of qualifications, we also believe that the opportunity to complete full degree programmes should be available to all HE students.
Additionally, we would not want a target focused on 18-30 year olds to overshadow the excellent work that HEIs, and those FECs delivering HE, have done to attract adults back to HE. We would want to see work with adults continued. In part this means treating the notion of “progression” with some caution – there needs to be more recognition of the extent to which people move in and out of further and higher education, on the basis of different criteria and pressures. Funding models and recruitment initiatives such as this one need to recognise this and not focus overly on a progression model which rewards continuous study, and one-off completion of qualifications.
It is also essential that widening participation (WP) initiatives are treated in the wider context of resource and funding (see specific points below in relation to institutional funding). Widening participation must not take place at the expense of higher and further education staff and the quality of the provision they offer. The availability of adequate financial support for students is key, as is the overall level of investment in higher education. We welcome the recognition in this consultation document that far more significant levels of funding are needed to tackle an ambitious, longer term, WP project. (paragraph 27), just as we strongly support the recognition of the burden on staff throughout the system, and are glad to see an approach which focuses on the need to work with what is already in place. Similarly, whilst we recognise the need to identify the role educational and training institutions and organisations can play in partnership, in encouraging prospective students to take up HE opportunities, it must be recognised that the barriers to take-up go beyond the parameters of the formal education system and need to be tackled in a wider social and cultural context.
Above all, however, there must be a recognition of the importance of adequate student support, particularly for mature learners. Evidence is accumulating that fear of debt disproportionately deters students from poorer backgrounds from continuing with their studies or from entering higher education. Where forms of financial support are available they are often overly complex and difficult to access. Funding must be reliable and easily comprehensible – and coherent between different levels of study. There is a strong view amongst those teaching in further education colleges that the problem of widening participation is not a lack of interest amongst students but the level of financial deterrence. We hope that the welcome recognition of these questions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will help to focus minds on the review of student support in England, and that initiatives such as the opening up of grants to part time and further education students, as envisaged in Wales, will also be taken up in England.
2 How can we best link this proposed initiative with the range of existing widening participation activity and the Excellence Challenge initiatives? (
One of the key issues is to establish a basis for funding WP, both at the recruitment and at the retention stages, which is consistent - not only across the range of WP initiatives, but in terms of overall funding to institutions. The focus of this consultation document is on collaboration, which NATFHE endorses. However HEIs are at the same time competing for students in a climate where competition has intensified following recent decisions on research funding, and on the abolition of the MASN. Funding rewards for recruitment activity need to be significantly weighted towards collaborative activity based on regionally agreed targets - and not tied to individual institutional intakes - with the rewards for individual institutions being focused on “retention” support for students actually in the system. On a similar theme, initiatives such as foundation degrees need to be taken forward in ways which can be genuinely collaborative on a regional basis, whereas at present they often result in competition between neighbouring institutions for students.
Another funding dilemma which is beginning to be generally recognised is the inadequacy of the current “postcode” method in identifying participation from poorer students, and in monitoring institutional performance/allocating funds in relation to the these levels of participation. Post codes are a crude indicator of disadvantage, and fail to identify pockets of disadvantage in areas of affluence - particularly in some suburban and rural areas.
Linkage with existing WP activity can also be achieved by building in continuity of staffing and broadening the involvement of staff institutionally so that existing good practice is disseminated and embedded.
3 How do you see the role of further education and training providers in the initiative?
FECs have a crucial role to play. In some parts of the country, for instance, they are the majority providers of A level study, in addition to the wide range of other academic and vocational courses they offer. And their role is not only in raising the aspirations of those students they work with at levels 2 and 3, but in terms of their own delivery of HE. They need to encourage, inform, motivate and enable their students to progress to HE. FECs could do even more to encourage their students to consider HE as an outcome of their FE studies. FE colleges could also do more to stress the different possibilities and modes of study in HE - for instance that it need not always be full-time, and that it can be discontinuous. Additionally, there needs to be better information in some FECs in relation to student financing, and the fact that some students may not have to pay HE fees - and there is an urgent need to ensure that the kinds of support that some FE students receive through FEFC/LSC funding (such as child care and support for additional learning needs) can continue when the student progresses to HE study.
However, FE is significantly under-resourced. FECS are at the forefront both of meeting government workforce development targets in relation to levels 2 and 3, and now also of partnership-working in relation to HE recruitment. Whilst these are proper and important roles for FECs, they must get the funding support to go with them. And whilst this consultation document seeks to make the distinction between initiatives focused on aspiration raising and those focused on retention, the fact is that FECs in particular also need to be able to demonstrate visible success with respect to their HE programmes if they are to enthuse their students at other levels. Initiatives to strengthen quality in FECs must take account of the needs of FE staff, in terms of professional development and conditions of work necessary for effective teaching and learning - such as time for scholarship and preparation. For instance, a recent survey carried out for NATFHE found that FE lecturers felt at the time that time and resources were not available for the effective introduction of Curriculum 2000. FECs have also tended to be more vulnerable to HE quality inspections in the past. Whilst FE staff will be engaging with more work with younger students, they also need to be offered opportunities to engage with HEIs - the range of partnerships between FE and HE providers need to offer opportunities to staff as well as to students if they are to maximise their potential.
4 Do you agree with the proposed aims and objectives of the initiative?
We agree with the proposed aims and objectives, in the context of the caveats expressed in our answer to question one, especially in relation to the overall nature of the government’s participation target, and the importance of not over-narrowly defining what is offered as workplace learning. We would also stress again here the point made in answer to question 3 - namely the importance of HEFCE and the LSC examining ways of supporting FE students once they enter FE, and ensuring that forms of support which help to retain FE students should also be available for HE level work.
5 Do you agree with the proposed priorities for action, and principles for designing the initiative?
We agree with proposed priorities, but in relation to workplace learning we believe there will need to be a great deal of work done with employers to convince them of the value of HE programmes, especially in relation to the broader content which will benefit the individual student but less directly the employer. For instance, modern apprenticeships show only a 30% completion rate, but of those dropping out, 90% continue in employment - usually with the same employer. This indicates that many employers may well be content that their employees study for directly relevant parts of programmes and leave when they have attained the parts the employer values. Employers have a crucial role in assisting employees to sustain participation, and getting them to recognise this role in relation to less directly relevant HE study is a battle yet to be won.
It must also be recognised that workplace learning takes time - and that time is as much a barrier to further study for employees, as money. The campaign for paid education leave is highly significant in this regard.
It is also our view that the Government should recognise that it shares some of the blame for the lack of esteem for vocational qualifications, by virtue of their insistence that all school qualifications should fit the academic model, rather than their genuinely valuing the vocational model. The current 14-19 Green Paper is giving out mixed messages on this issue.
In relation to work with young people in schools and colleges, while we accept the importance of focusing on those from lower socio-economic groups, there should continue to be an awareness of issues of gender and ethnicity.
In relation to the principles set out in para. 25, we particularly welcome the comments under “Stability”. Stability of funding in HEIs should not least mean that those staff engaged in widening participation initiatives can be properly employed and integrated into their institutions, and that human resource and staff development policies for all staff can take a fuller, more long term view of the demands of recruitment and retention strategies for non-traditional students. Whilst understanding that the focus of this particular initiative is on recruitment of students, there should even at this stage be an emphasis on the importance of retention and the implications this has for considerations of stability of funding and staffing.
Perhaps another principle would be useful - that of “joined-up-ness”. Various initiatives need to meet up - both within institutions (for instance in relation to teaching and learning, human resources and research) and across parts of the education and training sector. So, for example, specialist schools initiatives need to be linked with the intention that FECs become centres of vocational excellence, and with the idea that some HEIs might become new technology institutes. Additionally the ideas in this initiative need to be linked to the ideas about workforce development signalled in the PIU report, pre-Budget statement and TUC/CBI Productivity Report.
6a
Support for HE/FE partnerships/ (
i Do you agree that we should build upon the existing HE/FE regional widening participation partnerships?
Agree. See comments
ii Do you agree that regional “targets” should be established and monitored?
Strongly agree
iii Do you agree that we should allocate funds regionally, with weightings to reflect current participation levels, and invite strategic action plans from partnerships?
Agree. See comments.
iv Do you agree that the partnerships should propose their own mix of activity to meet the aims and objectives identified?
Strongly agree
v Do you agree that a major area for investment should be support for HE/FE staff to work with schools, colleges and workplaces to raise aspirations and achievement in students from age 13?
Strongly agree. See comments.
vi Do you agree that we should also provide support for summer schools, mentoring activities and regional and local co-ordination?
Agree. See comments
Comments on 6a
We agree, in 6ai, that regional partnerships should be built on, but at the same time we must recognise that there may be other forms of successful partnership which should not be abandoned. Particularly we are thinking of national partnerships where there may be a specialist shortage or subject with a very small number of FE and HE providers, and of partnerships which are functioning across regional borders.
Whilst we do agree with the weighting of funding proposed in 6aiii, we recognise the need to offer some incentive funding to those who have yet to make real inroads in terms of widening participation activities. Nonetheless the funding should be weighted towards those institutions with a successful track record in this area.
Under 6av we very strongly agree that there should be a major investment in supporting staff, and that this should be broader than an investment in a small number of specialist staff. In both HE and FE there should be career incentives for academic staff to engage with the full range of widening participation work, and a far greater esteem given to the kinds of teaching and learning support and pastoral support that helps non-traditional students stay within HE. Heavy teaching loads in FE, and pressure to prioritise research in HE, mean that there is currently little incentive for many staff to engage with these areas of work. See also our comments in answer to question 3.
Whilst we agree, under 6avi, that there should be support for mentoring and for local and regional co-ordination, we wonder how much feedback there is on the success, or otherwise, of summer school initiatives?
6b Funding for quality standards improvement.
i Do you agree we should build upon the existing LSC programme for improving quality standards?
Agree. See comments.
ii Do you agree we should target funds to providers that draw their students from lower socio-economic groups and poorer neighbourhoods, and which have lower rates of attainment and entry into HE?
Agree. See comments.
iii Do you agree that we should set out our priorities for funds in relation to our aims and objectives and ask providers to set out their proposed activities in development plans?
Strongly agree.
iv Do you agree that we should set targets and monitor activity as part of the LSC’s wider quality standards improvement process?
Strongly agree.
Comments on 6b
In relation to 6bi whilst we agree with building on the LSC programmes, we also believe that where institutions and partnerships come up with other ways to build on and improve quality standards then these should be given consideration.
In relation to 6bii, our only reservation is that the kinds of targeting the paper refers to run the risk of failing to identify pockets of deprivation, and initiatives in institutions drawing from mixed areas - essentially the arguments against the current postcode methodology.
6c Funding for workplace learning. Do you agree with our proposals that we should focus on targeted employment sectors? (paras 50-54)
Agree - although we feel further consideration is needed, for instance to ensure that national skill shortages at HE level are not neglected. In addition we would repeat our concerns that the educational needs and aspirations of those who are in casual employment, or unemployed, are not neglected.
6d Do you agree with the proposed national programme of research and evaluation? (paras 55-57)
Strongly agree
[March 2002]
1