The Higher Education in Further Education Colleges Liaison Group held its second national conference at the East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham on Wednesday 09 November 2005.
The event began with an introduction and welcome from Peter Williams, Chief Executive, QAA. Presentations were given by five speakers and two seminar sessions took place.
The presentations included a talk from Mr Martin Williams, Deputy Director Higher Education Sector, Shape and Structure, DfES on the challenges for higher education (HE) in the future. A presentation given jointly by Professor John Coyne, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Derby and Mr John Widdowson, Principal of the New College Durham focused on good practice in partnerships. Dr Stephen Jackson, Director of the Reviews Group, QAA spoke on the findings from academic review of HE in further education colleges (FECs) 2003-05 and what could be learnt from them. Mrs Gillian Hayes, Head of Operations Programme Review, QAA outlined the new QAA method being developed for the review of HE in FECs.
Report of discussions from seminar groups
Two sets of seminar sessions took place, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Each of the six groups in the morning seminar sessions focused on a different type of partnership. The afternoon seminar groups discussed topics that had been developed from the morning seminar sessions. It should be noted that not all questions were discussed by every group. A QAA note taker recorded the main points from the discussion within each group.
The six questions that were put forward for discussion were:
- Partnerships: monogamy v polygamy?
- For joint degree programmes taught in English, what quality (QA) mechanisms exist to ensure that students’ English language skills are of a suitable standard?
- What unique selling points do FECs have to sell their programmes to employers?
- How can the work of higher education institutions (HEIs), FECs and Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) be consolidated for programme development?
- Given that SSCs are at different stages of development, what approaches can be taken to encourage partnership working?
- If learners can start degree-level studies at school, why bother with university or college?
The following provides a brief overview of the main points arising from discussions of the questions that were considered within the groups.
Partnerships: monogamy v polygamy?
It was noted that the choice of partnerships for an FEC could be very limited, as partnerships are often restricted by whom the course was validated by, and that there may only be one HEI that could validate a very specific course. Also, partnership models were often based upon historical grounds and that these often reflected cultural regions. It was suggested that partnership arrangements with the newer HEIs were often considered to be easier than those with the more traditional institutions.
From the point of view of an FEC, the monogamous relationship is generally perceived as best, and it was suggested that the advantages of having a monogamous relationship were:
- one quality system
- simplified validation arrangements
- students are part of a larger environment and have access to resources, the Students’ Union and extra-mural activities
- potential for sharing and cross-fertilisation of ideas
- interactions between FEC and HEI staff.
A disadvantage cited of a monogamous relationship was the restriction that monogamy would have on the range of disciplines available to compliment the FEC provision.
Although a monogamous relationship could be considered to be best, it was recognised that, typically, FECs are in multi-partnership environments. It was noted that multi-partnerships between FECs and HEIs could be very complex with different levels of quality assurance processes; the following advantages of a polygamous relationship were highlighted:
- wider choice for students and, therefore, improved progression routes
- potential for more flexibility in bursary arrangements
- where an FEC has a choice of HEIs, it allows the college to choose the most appropriate HEI for their programme.
It was also suggested that Lifelong Learning Networks should be considered within and across partnerships, and that in a polygamous arrangement there would be opportunities for intra-partnership activity.
It was proposed that partnerships should be determined through the shared missions of the partners involved.
For joint degree programmes taught in English, what QA mechanisms exist to ensure that students’ English language skills are of a suitable standard?
This topic was only discussed by one of the four seminar groups. There was a concern raised regarding the quality assurance mechanisms of academic skills in general (not just English language skills), and in relation to all students, not only overseas students or students studying on joint programmes.
It was noted, however, that overseas students often require additional support with their English language skills and other more general skills. It was also recognised that students coming from different cultural backgrounds may require additional support with regard to plagiarism, for example, where clarity may be required with reference to the authenticity of sources.
Another potential area for further development was the involvement of employers, particularly in relation to placement activity.
What unique selling points do FECs have to sell their programmes to employers?
All groups discussing this topic highlighted that FECs were able to actively engage with employers and respond to their needs by tailoring programmes to ensure students are provided with the skills employers need and that meet the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. However, it was recognised that FECs can use very different approaches in the way they interact with employers, but that any approach should be clear and transparent. It was noted that sometimes FECs are not always good at keeping employers informed of the progress of students.
Additionally, it was recognised that FECs have an important role in widening participation, in encouraging students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress to higher education. FECs are also able to provide tutorial support for students and thereby improve retention rates. In tailoring programmes to meet employer needs, students are provided with the technical competence that employers require, and that any costs are far outweighed by the benefits.
The regional aspect of FEC provision was highlighted as a benefit, as FECs are accessible and provide a regional employee base. FECs also are traditionally providers of part-time study, which provides the flexibility to students for study around other commitments.
The issue of funding some Foundation Degree (FD) programmes was considered. It was suggested that where an FD programme had been developed for a specific area of employment and the employer insists that the programme is ‘closed’, the employer should directly fund this provision, for example, police force-related FD programmes.
It was additionally noted that there could be a long time lapse between when a request from an employer for the development of a programme is received to when the delivery can begin and students complete and become qualified. This is partly as a result of the lengthy validation process.
How can the work of HEIs, FECs and SSCs be consolidated for programme development?
It was suggested that when developing new programmes an analysis of regional requirements should be undertaken to ascertain the need and demands of employers, of students and of the regional development agencies. However, it was recognised that it can often be difficult to identify the useful local information.
An example of programme development where collaboration took place between HEIs, FECs and employers, is the ‘Skills for Justice’ programme. FECs generally work within their existing partnerships with employers and they tend to have a core set of employers with whom they engage. It was considered important for FECs to ensure that employers within their areas are made fully aware of FD programmes and the potential benefits to them. It was noted that where interactions with the regional Foundation Degree Forward manager had taken place, this had proved to be very beneficial and valuable.
Often, FECs have interactions with a large number of employers, which can generate problems arising from the multiplicity of links. It was proposed that perhaps the SSCs could act as a ‘broker’ between the FEC and the employers.
Given that SSCs are at different stages of development, what approaches can be taken to encourage partnership working?
Discussion points overlapped with those covered in the previous question. The examples of good practice all required commitment to liaison leading to better shared understanding of issues and developing shared aims. This was likely to require resources, for example, time for meetings.
If learners can start degree-level studies at school, why bother with university or college?
The feeling was that while doing ‘taster’ modules at school could be beneficial to stretch students and introduce them to HE-level study, it could not replace the overall experience of HE study at an FEC or HEI. The majority of students would want to continue onto a course at an FEC or HEI.
Crediting HE modules achieved at school could perhaps lead to ‘fast tracking’ on HE courses, for example, foundation and honours degree courses.
The discussion of one group evolved into a consideration of the issue of research and scholarship for staff involved in the delivery of HE in FECs. They felt it warranted reporting as an additional item.
Research and scholarship in further education
Concerns were raised regarding the inequality, or perceived inequality, of opportunities to undertake research and scholarship for staff delivering HE in FECs compared to those available for staff working in HEIs. Workloads for staff in FECs were generally considerably higher than for their counterparts employed in HEIs. It was noted that concerns regarding inequalities are seldom addressed within the sector and, as a result, teaching may be under-informed due to a lack of time to carry out research, read around the subject, examine websites, etc.
There was often a lack of clarity regarding what activities could count as research and scholarly pursuits, and that there were inconsistencies in how research and scholarly activities were considered across FECs.
It was also noted that contracts for staff differ between FE and HE regarding development days and how these are managed. In some instances it was stated that management within an FEC would try to direct how development days are utilised, whereas in HE, staff were perceived to have more freedom in how they use their development days.
It was suggested that clear national guidelines for staff delivering HE programmes in FECs be provided for all Principals of FECs, detailing how research and scholarly activity should be conducted across the sector.
Top