However, the online directory does not provide any taxonomy ... institutions are 'private career colleges', offering voc
Access and equity:
positioning Alternative Providers in Higher Education provision Stephen Lee
Access and equity
About the author Professor Stephen Lee is Chief Executive of CentreForum and Professor of Voluntary Sector Management at Cass Business School, City University. He has researched and written widely on issues of regulation and governance as they impact on the private, public and the voluntary sectors.
Acknowledgements CentreForum is grateful to GSM London and BIMM for their kind support of this paper. Our thanks also go to those Higher Education providers, regulators and representative bodies who gave freely of their time to participate in the primary research associated with this study. My thanks go to Alison Wheaton, Adam Carswell, Dr William Hunt and Emma Petela for their invaluable input and guidance as the research and the drafting of this report has progressed. Particular thanks go to Duncan Greenland and Nick Hillman for their detailed comments and advice on the draft report. Finally, thanks are due to Tom Frostick, Russell Eagling and Laura McDonald at CentreForum for their insightful comments and editorial support. Any errors and all the views contained within this paper are entirely the author’s.
isbn: 978-1-909274-22-8 Published September 2014 CentreForum This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 4.0 International License. For more information visit creativecommons.org
2
Access and equity
:: Contents Glossary of terms 4 1. Introduction
5
2. Alternative provision in Higher Education: a global perspective
7
3. Problems of definition and categorisation
13
4. Opportunities and barriers for growth
22
5. Higher Education reforms and Alternative Providers
28
6. The failure of the current regulatory system
45
7. Prompts for further reform
53
8. Conclusion and recommendations
63
Appendix 1 Participants in the primary research
65
3
Access and equity
:: Glossary of terms APs
Alternative Providers of Higher Education
BIS
Department for Business Innovation & Skills
CHE
Council for Higher Education
DAPs
Degree Awarding Powers
FECs
Further Education Colleges
HE
Higher Education
HEI
Higher Education Institutions
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council England
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
MOOCS
Massive Online Open Courses
OCID
Office for Competition & Institutional Diversity
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development
OFFA
Office for Fair Access
OFHE
Office for Higher Education
OFT
Office of Fair Trading
OIA
Office of the Independent Adjudicator
RPG
Regulatory Partnership Group
SME
Small, Medium Enterprise
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
UCAS
University & Colleges Admissions Service
4
Access and equity
:: Introduction Alternative Providers (APs) of Higher Education (HE) have been recognised as a growing feature within the UK HE marketplace for some years. APs take many different organisational forms. Some operate as private sector ventures seeking a return on investment for their owners, whilst others operate as non-profit or charitable organisations. In the vast majority of instances they operate alongside but independently from the established university sector. There is a growing recognition within government and within the established university sector that the continued growth in alternative provision is a good thing – good for extended student choice and employment outcomes; supportive of the government’s broadening access agenda for HE and a driver of new and innovative HE provision through the growing range of partnerships and collaborations APs enjoy with the established university sector. Through the increasing breadth and depth of their provision; the innovation and responsiveness they exhibit in meeting emergent and fast changing educational needs; their variation in product and service design; and through their ability to reach out to a wider base of potential students; APs provide a practical and affordable alternative route for a growing number of prospective students.1 Yet by comparison with the established university sector APs remain poorly researched and ill defined. Their motives and intent have been called into question and the quality of their provision is only partially understood and regulated.2 Whilst the coalition government have expressed support for the further development of alternative provision in HE and for the development of a more coherent approach to regulation across the entire HE sector; the lack of parliamentary time, and arguably, political will, means that urgently needed primary legislation anticipated by the publication of the 2011 HE White Paper3 remains unlikely before 2015. 4 1 2 3 4
Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. March 2010. Page 3. Fielden J. (2013) “Diversity of provision in higher education. The role of the private provider.” Perspectives, Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Vol.17 No.1 2013. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), (2011). “Higher education: students at the heart of the system.” June 2011. Accessible at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-white-paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-system The Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. Higher Education Commission. November 2013. Recommendation 1. Hillman N (2014) “Unfinished business?: higher education legislation.” HEPI Report 65. Higher Education Policy Institute. 2014.
5
Access and equity
The purpose of this report is to survey our current understanding of what constitutes the HE Alternative Provider sector in England, if indeed, ’sector’ is an appropriate term for it. Like other researchers before us we find that a single demarcating definition of alternative provision is not possible. Building on the highly stratified nature of AP provision reported in research commissioned by BIS (2013),5 our specific research focus in this paper therefore concentrates on the growing contribution that APs deliver to the provision of undergraduate degree study within the English HE system and the manner in which the regulation of that system currently imposes itself on APs. We seek to clarify those elements of the current regulatory scheme that appear to support or hinder the further development of alternative provision in HE, and to make recommendations for future regulatory and practice frameworks to support the effective development of alternative provision as an integral part of the HE sector as a whole.
5
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) ”Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS. London 2013.
6
Access and equity
:: 2 Alternative provision in Higher Education: a global perspective Structural changes in the global economy, technological innovation, the emergence of the BRIC economies and their thirst to fuel economic and social development in part through the provision of higher education, have all promoted significant growth in the emergence and of alternate delivery models for HE across the globe. At the same time, international public sector fiscal constraint finds it increasingly difficult to meet the demand from consumers and the ever changing needs of employers for places in HE provision. Increasingly, the demand for the benefits that a higher education delivers are beyond the capacity of what public sector provision alone can afford or deliver. In response, privately financed APs have grown across all established international HE markets - analysts indicating that the number of students in private institutions is growing faster than in publicly-owned and funded ones.6 Universities UK consider the growth in international HE APs as a ‘global phenomenon’. Citing Levy, they estimate that globally alternative provider provision of HE now accounts for 30% of total global HE student enrolments.7 As Table 1 indicates, private provision is most significant in those regions where growth in higher education is most intense and where in response, public sector provision and the government funding that underpins it, is at its most stretched. The majority of these APs are not-for-profit entities (charities and voluntary organisations) that have grown up organically in an unstructured and unspecified manner. As Table 1 indicates, Alternative Provider institutions outnumber those reliant upon public finance: in the main they are smaller than their public sector counterparts. They tend to focus on specialised, niche provision of courses, supported by evident demand to meet skills or head count deficiencies in the employment market. 6 7
Levy, D (2009). In Bjarnason, S Et. Al. “A new dynamic: private higher education.” UNESCO, Paris. Page 8. Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK. Universities UK. London. March 2010. Page 10.
7
Access and equity
Table 1: Incidence of private Higher Education provision by region Region
Private % of total enrolment
Numbers of students in private HEIs
Private HEIs as % of the total
Numbers of private HEIs
Africa
14.6
0.7m
59.2
434
Asia
36.4
18m
57.8
18,206
Latin America
48.6
7.6m
71.3
7,090
Europe
16.0
3.7m
25.7
2,136
USA
26.1
4.7m
61.3
2,667
World totals
31.3
35m
55.7
30,555
Source: PROPHE (2010). Public and private higher education shares for 117 countries, 2001-2009. (updated November 2010). Note: These figures are amalgams of differently defined data for different years (2001-2009) and can only therefore give an approximate feel for the scale of provision.
Other factors promoting the global growth in HE alternative provision include: ::
the growing marketisation of the international HE sector at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels :: the emergence of private sector HE providers comfortable in applying the disciplines of the commercial sector in addressing unmet skills needs and competencies offered through established HE provision :: governments that are increasingly mindful not to obstruct a profit motive in the delivery of HE, not least because to do so would be to artificially restrict the ability of the supply side to meet evident growing demand :: and the inclination of governments to reform and challenge traditional public sector modes of HE delivery that they characterise as inefficient, restrictive in scope and outmoded in a dynamic HE international competitive market. America maintains the most significant Alternative Provider sector. As Table 1 demonstrates this accounts for more than a quarter of student enrolments and over 60% of HE institutions. More significantly, “the fastest growing segment of higher education is the for-profit sector which has now reached almost 10 per cent of all enrolments in higher education.”8 Concerns have been expressed about the ethics and recruitment practices associated with some of these providers in seeking to maximise student numbers 8
Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. Page 10.
8
Access and equity
(and therefore income) without consequent regard for the quality of students recruited, their likely success in completing their chosen course of study and the costs incurred by them of defection to other programmes.9 Middlehurst & Fielden (2011) extend these concerns to the emergent UK AP market warning that replication would impact negatively on student outcomes and damage the reputation of the UK HE sector as a whole. They conclude: “The lesson from the USA is that the scope and design of the regulatory framework [in the UK] will be crucial. It must not provide any perverse incentives and it should seek to endorse national objectives for higher education.”10 Universities UK (2010) surveyed the growth of AP providers across Europe. They found evidence of a small but growing and diverse range of private provision.11 Emergent eastern bloc states are developing significant private provision similar to that delivered by APs in the UK - in some states over 25% of student enrolments are accounted for by private sector providers (i.e. Poland, Romania and Latvia). In Northern Europe (i.e. Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia) the HE private sector is less well developed by comparison, with the presence of a long established, publicly funded university sector that continues to dominate HE provision. Here, APs account on average for just 10% - 15% of student enrolment. Across Europe the regulation of private providers of HE, and more importantly, the assimilation of private and publicly funded HE provision within a single, coherent regulatory framework remains disparate and tentative. Can we learn more from countries outside Europe which, like Britain, have seen alternative HE providers growing up alongside an established sector of publicly funded universities? Examples in this mould are Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. In Australia, all institutions meeting the definition of HE provider are required to be registered by the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Providers must comply with certain obligations, including quality standards and data submission.12 Providers are categorised as Australian University, Australian University of Specialisation, Australian University College, Higher Education Institution or Overseas University. Australian Universities self-accredit and offer a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses (including doctorates).
9 10 11 12
Fielden J. (2013) “Diversity of provision in higher education: the role of the private provider.” Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Vol.17. No. 1. Page 6. Middlehurst R & Fielden J (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI, Page 24. Note: the detailed analysis of US alternative provision is contained on pages 18-25. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/ Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK. Universities UK. London. March 2010. Page 60. www.teqsa.gov.au/for-providers/provider-obligations
9
Access and equity
Australian University College is a category for institutions which have clear and achievable plans to become Australian Universities. Australian Universities of Specialisation have similar requirements, but only offer a narrow range of subjects. HE providers need not undertake research. They can self-accredit, teach both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and teach a wide range of subjects. The threshold requirements to be included in the TEQSA register are based on quality of teaching.13 It appears that, for the most part, the AP sector in Australian higher education is occupied by HE providers; the types of institution are similar to the ones found in the UK – for example, colleges specialising in religious courses or business studies are common. However, the online directory does not provide any taxonomy except the distinctions between Universities, HE providers and so on. The same is true in South Africa: institutions are listed, and a list of the courses they teach is provided, but there is no categorisation of institutions. South Africa’s directory does not include universities, which are dealt with under a different regulatory system. Registration is mandatory for all private institutions offering HE courses. 14 A central record of HE providers is also kept in New Zealand. The UK equivalent of the Alternative Provider sector is the category ‘private training establishment’, which includes all higher education institutions that are not state-owned. Within this category, the type of institution is diverse; similar to Australia and South Africa, there is no attempt to organise the providers by ownership, type/motive or other variables.15 The central record acts as a quality control mechanism. Institutions are permitted to exist without being part of the record, but there is no guarantee of their quality. In Canada, the system is complicated by the fact that each of the provinces has responsibility for higher education provision, so there is some variation between provinces in the presence and strength of the alternative sector. Most private institutions are ‘private career colleges’, offering vocational and career-specific training to meet labour-market needs and provincial and territorial legislation sets out minimum requirements (financial, programme, etc.) that must be met before they are registered, which is a prerequisite to operation.16 Different countries approach the definition and categorisation of alternative provision of HE differently. In South Africa, Australia and Canada, registration and fulfilment of quality control standards is a prerequisite to offering higher education courses and as such defines the sector, whereas this is not the case in New Zealand. 13 14 15 16
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 (available at www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/ F2012L00003/Html/Text#_Toc311791703) www.saqa.org.za/docs/misc/phei/lphei.pdf www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers/results.do?regionCode=0&typeCode=PTE&nameQuery= www.cicic.ca/417/Private-Career-Colleges.canada
10
Access and equity
None of the countries examined provide a comprehensive taxonomy of APs. In Canada’s case, this may be because the alternative sector is made up entirely of private career colleges. But in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – just like in the UK – provision is just too heterogeneous, there is a wide range of providers under a very broad single category. As the Universities UK study (2010) concludes, “there is no single definition that encompasses all private providers and provision.”17 Rather, where APs have been embraced within broader classifications of HE provision, the most effective route toward definition has been achieved through implementation of a system of comprehensive registration of all HE providers, rather than categorisation by form or function.
Conclusions :: :: :: ::
:: ::
17
APs represent a growing force in the provision of higher education internationally. Governments across the globe struggle to meet the growing demand for higher education and the limitations that this places on the public purse. In the globally competitive higher education market the UK will not be immune from these pressures. No comprehensive definition or classification of APs of higher education appears to exist at the international level that is capable of practical application to the English experience. Review of the international environment indicates only ill-defined and tentative attempts to incorporate APs within systematic regulation. Conversely, evidence of inappropriate practice by APs appears best addressed by the development of systematic regulation within a comprehensive system of regulation.
Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. Page 60.
11
Access and equity
Case Study Regents University: Internationalism is a core competence Delivering an ‘Open Door’ in international awareness Regent’s University hosts one of the most diverse student bodies in the United Kingdom, welcoming students from over 140 countries around the world. Each year more than 900 students choose Regent’s University as their study-abroad destination.
How does Regent’s University deliver this? Parity of esteem and cost
As an independent institution, all students, regardless of their nationality pay the same tuition fees. Specialist international student support
The International Partnerships Office (IPO) coordinates all international student support throughout the student journey. From application through induction to graduation and beyond, students enjoy an ‘open door’ policy working closely with the IPO Outbound Unit team, Academic Advisors and Programme Directors. They provide support and guidance through presentations, publications and workshops. Abroad programmes integrated in teaching programmes
Opportunities are available for all Regent’s University London students to participate in Study Abroad programmes as part of their studies. Study Abroad is embedded in many programmes and most RUL students can study abroad for at least one semester as part of their Regent’s degree, with other programmes offering two semesters abroad. Students actively support internationalisation
The International Student Bureau is a student committee with representatives from international and UK based students. One of the main functions of the ISB is to social and cultural events for fellow students both on and off campus. Through these social activities students learn about each others countries, cultures and languages. “Regent’s unites an international, varied crowd in the very heart of London’s most beautiful area. I come from a very international background and it was fundamental for me to continue my academic path with people from all cultures and backgrounds.” Valeska Haggenmüller, Student
12
Access and equity
:: 3 Problems in definition and categorisation There have been numerous attempts to define and categorise APs. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines a private education institution as one that “is controlled and managed by a nongovernmental organisation (e.g. a Church, Trade Union or business enterprise), or if its Governing Board consists mostly of members not selected by a public agency”.18 By extension, an independent private institution is defined as “a [private education] institution that receives less than 50 per cent of its core funding from government agencies”.19 Middlehurst & Fielden (2011) provide a detailed analysis of the range of categorisations presented from earlier studies.20 In seeking to achieve a comprehensive categorisation of APs, scholars and practitioners alike have sought to distinguish between: :: ::
:: :: ::
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the different roles, mission, purpose and ownership structures employed by different types of AP provider (Levy et.al.21) the relative ambition of reach they display in terms of the nature and size of the student body sought( i.e. elite, cultural or non-elite demand absorbing, Geiger,22) by the variety of funding sources employed, (Dima23) by nature of the mode of service delivery employed and the form of recognition afforded it (Knight24) and by commercial ownership structures and location (Kinser25).
stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2123 stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=5379 Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI Page 5. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html Levy,D. (2009). “Growth and Typology” in Bjarnason, S., Cheng, K-M., Fielden, J., Lemaitre, M-J., Levy, D., & Varghese, N.V. (2009). “A New Dynamic: Private Higher Education.” UNESCO. Paris. 2009. Geiger, R.L. (1996). “Diversification in US higher education: historical patterns and current trends”. In Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O. & Rinne, R. (Eds). (2010) “The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Diversity, Differentiation and Convergence in Higher Education.” Oxford, Pergamon Press. Dima A-M. (2004). “Organisational typologies in private higher education” Paper presented at consortium of higher education researchers (CHER) 17th annual conference, 17-19 September 2004. Knight, J. (2005). “New typologies for cross-border higher education”. International Higher Education. Vol. 38, Winter 2005. Kinser, K. (2006). “From main street to wall street: the transformation of for-profit higher education.” ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol 31, No. 5. San Francisco, Jossey Bass
13
Access and equity
In the domestic context Universities UK (2010) build on this earlier work in their analysis of the growth and delineation of AP provision. They recognise the growing confusion and increasing congestion in the UK HE sector that an increasingly varied constellation of HE providers creates.26 They point to the growing range of public/private partnership initiatives; the wide variation in institutional motives and surplus distribution across the sector as a whole and the growing incidence of APs partnering with established universities in the validation/accreditation and delivery of joint awards to support this trend.27 From their analysis it is clear that we can conclude that demarcation between traditionally discrete and distinct sub-sectors in HE provision is becoming harder to maintain in an effective manner. Traditional lines of differentiation are blurring and breaking down - the momentum behind this is coming from both sides – the result of greater competition, the infusion of market forces from within and without the domestic environment, and fuelled by an uneven and rocky transition from the dominant producer-led paradigm of HE provision toward the emergence of a market or consumer-led approach championed by APs.28 The authors conclude: “The distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit is becoming less relevant in the UK since most not-for-profit higher education institutions now operate in a business-like manner and seek to generate surpluses from many of their activities. A key distinction is how these surpluses are distributed – for private or public good.”29
In an attempt to overcome these confusions, the Universities UK study sought to define APs by the activity or functions that they embrace – “unbundling the higher education process to identify the different ways that the private sector plays a part.” A four part classification was proposed, focusing on the nature of direct delivery by type of award proffered; delivery targeted toward international students; content delivered through partnerships and a fourth catch all category based upon contracted service provision. The classification is replicated in Table 2 (overleaf). Whilst categorisation by activity is instructive in pointing to the breadth of provision now undertaken by APs, international experience demonstrates that this approach suffers from a lack of precision and exclusivity of the categories developed. In turn, this severely diminishes its utility in providing a comprehensive 26 27 28 29
Universities UK (2010) “The growth in private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. Universities UK (2010) “The growth of private and for-profit HE providers in the UK. Universities UK. London . March 2010. Page 24. This is not to suggest that there have not been significant advocates of the market based approach imbedded within the established university sector, there have. Rather it reflects the fact that concern for the impact of market forces and the consumer centric approach are inherent within the DNA of APs. The Growth of Private and For-profit HE providers in the UK. Universities UK. London . March 2010. Page 4.
14
Access and equity
Table 2: Classification of UK private providers by function Function
Sub function
1. Delivery of adacemic content
Offering own degree (using UK degree awarding powers) Offering own non-degree (with accredidation overseas) Offering own award in partnership with a UK institution Offering an aware from a UK partner institution Offering own certificated module within (or alongside) a partner university’s degree programme Offering own (overseas) online awards (with no UK face-to-face support) Partnership in online course delivery
2. Academic suport for international students in the UK
English language and study skills training Foundation year programmes First year programmes Pre-Masters Programmes
3. Partnerships in providing content
Production of course materials under subcontract Provision of online learning modules to fit within an institution’s virtual learning environment
4. Other types of relationship
Partnership with the private sector in conitnuing professional development design and delivery for third party clients Contracted tutorial support in the UK and overseas Educational resting and assessment services in specialsit fields Granting of accreditation or quality assurance services in professional or technical fields Agreed articulation into a universtity’s degree programme from qualifications awarded by a private provider.
Source: The Growth of Private and For-profit HE Providers in the UK. Universities UK, 2010.
mechanism by which all identified forms of provision can be separated and defined between one type of provider and another. For example, (referring to table 2 above), whilst category 1 is useful in delineating the range of courses developed or hosted by APs, the same Alternative Provider will often offer those courses to international students through the classification offered in category 2. The categories proposed are not then effective categories from a definitional perspective – they are not mutually exclusive and they do not define one type of provider against another. In the same vein, the latter two categories are too broad in construct to offer any practical utility in delineating particular institutional type or form that defines one set of institutions exclusively from others. More recently, Fielden (2013) presents a five part definition of UK HE APs, seeking to classify them by ownership, motive, by level or mode of provision, by courses 15
Access and equity
achieving designation for student loan finance and by target audience. The analysis rehearses many of the constraints already identified above, leaving the author to conclude that “even the definition of what is a private provider leaves several grey areas.”30 His research indicates that with any system of classification, there will be variables that cut across all categories. This was acknowledged in the UNESCO report, where public-private partnerships and profit-making status were used as examples of factors that cut across their categorisation based on the nature of the institution. It is also clear from analysis of the BIS report31 that some factors ‘fit’ more than others – for example, religious colleges tend to be non-profit and business colleges tend to be for-profit,32 and older colleges tend to be non-profit while more recently established institutions tend to be for-profit.33 Precise quantification of the size and activity of UK HE APs has been difficult in the absence of any form of universal registration requirement or supporting regulatory framework covering the entire domain. As Fielden (2013) notes, “If an entrepreneur wishes to launch a private college in the UK for UK students, there is no formal national registration required and the success of the enterprise will depend on the credibility and reputation of the body that undertakes to accredit or certify the programmes that are offered.”34
Middlehurst & Fielden (2011) conclude, “policy makers are largely in the dark at present about the size and shape of the private sector.”35 Whilst the Alternative Provider sector is increasingly dominant in the overall provision of global HE, it remains a defuse and ill-defined force in the development of public policy and the regulation of HE domestically for a number of reasons: :: :: ::
30 31 32 33 34 35
Alternative Provider provision has grown idiosyncratically in response to both philanthropic and commercially expressed needs and motivation. The complexity of institutional form, mode and level of provision is enormous, both within geographic markets and across them. By comparison, there is simplicity and clarity within long standing public sector institutions where access to markets is controlled by specified institutional title and/or external financial controls on student numbers
Fielden J. (2013) “Diversity of provision in higher education. The role of the private provider.” Perspectives, Policy and Practice in in Higher Education. Vol.17 No.1 2013. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK. BIS Page 40. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS Page 40. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS Page 46. Fielden J. (2013) “Diversity of provision in higher education. The role of the private provider.” Perspectives, Policy and Practice in in Higher Education. Vol.17 No.1 2013. Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI. Page 34. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html
16
Access and equity
and publicly funded research. The youthful, dynamic and increasingly competitive market positions that many APs locate within the broader HE market, tends to focus their institutional behaviour toward their own, individual performance over sector-wide development. Given these factors, it is not surprising that, by comparison with the established university sector, APs find it hard to mobilise as a group and have difficulty in speaking collectively with one voice - they remain barely a ‘sector’ or sub sector at all.36 ::
Seeking to address these issues, BIS commissioned research into the scope and nature of HE APs in 2012. Published in July 2013, the report offers the most current and in-depth analysis of alternative provision in HE. The research identifies 674 APs meeting the needs of an estimated 160,000 students. The research demonstrates that alternative provision is highly stratified - a large number of small providers are dominated in terms of numbers of student served, by relatively few larger providers. Only five institutions reporting had more than 5000 students, 49% had fewer than 100 students. By comparison with the more established university sector APs are small.37 “Despite representing almost three quarters of the total number of providers (74%), the smaller providers with 250 of fewer learners account for just 13.8% of the total identified student population. In contrast, the 35 largest providers, with over 1000 students, contain 65% of the identified students.”38 The report demonstrates that most APs focus on a limited range of specialised programme provision, especially when compared to the offering from publicly funded HE institutions.39 Whilst 1/3rd of respondents delivered HE programmes across a range of subject specialisms, 2/3rds focused on one specialism.40 Professional and vocational subjects are strongly represented, reinforcing the views expressed in earlier studies that APs closely reflect the contemporary needs of business and the development of work-based skills. By contrast, the findings relating to student progression and destination outcomes are less compelling. 32% of respondents indicated that less than half of their students went into graduate level jobs; 75% reported that less than half of students went into further HE study. The authors note that, “the issue of graduate 36 37 38 39 40
Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI Page 34. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS Page 29. The report notes that the average number of HE students per institution for the comparable period is 15,000. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 30. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 49. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 33.
17
Access and equity
destinations from privately funded providers of HE is therefore unclear, and could be explored further.”41 Similar issues are reported regarding student completion rates. Whilst rates were high from those institutions responding, the data presented remains opaque across the sample frame as a whole. Telephone interviews with APs that supported the quantitative research, found that 40% of interviewees were unable to provide data on progression into further study while nearly 60% did not have data relating to progression into graduate level jobs. We agree with the authors’ comment, “Clearly the performance of providers in relation to outcomes and completion are an important marker of quality and can have significant bearing on the student experience and the resulting reputation of the UK HE system as a whole. It can be argued that further transparency on the pass rate and completion of students in privately funded HE providers could support their reputation for quality, as well as that of the UK HE overall.”42
Data on student satisfaction found over 80% of students studying with APs were satisfied with the quality of their course, their course provider, teaching and learning provision and the role of accrediting institutions. The quality of academic support (assessment and feedback, organisation and management, and the quality of the facilities and learning resources) made available to them through their period of study was satisfactory.43 More than 70% of respondents were satisfied with the value for money and nearly 80% said their expectations had been met.44 The authors note that these findings are “broadly equal” to student satisfaction levels within the more established universities. APs also deliver a similar range of support functions to students as those found in the more established university sector. Access to libraries and IT services is commonplace; over 70% offer counselling or well-being services and about two-thirds offer clubs, societies and social facilities. In-house career services are offered by approximately half of providers. Finally, the research findings indicate that more than 80% of students studying with APs believed that a) their courses had helped them develop the knowledge needed to get a job on completion, b) their employment prospects had improved and/or 41 42 43 44
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 57. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 55. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 107-11. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 104.
18
Access and equity
c) their course had prepared them for further study.45 As the authors conclude, “students in privately funded HE and publicly funded HE institutions display similarly high levels of satisfaction with their course”.46 The findings contained within this report provide the most comprehensive analysis of domestic alternative provision achieved to date. They demonstrate, as is confirmed by our own primary research findings contained in section 5 of this paper, that concerns expressed about quality of provision, academic governance and support and student satisfaction within alternative provision appear to be largely unfounded. They confirm the view that alternative provision is often specialised and narrow in terms of the programme portfolio offered and that teaching is infused with the delivery of vocational skills informed by the employer marketplace. Problems of definition and classification of APs re-emerge in this study, confirming the results of previous studies. The research findings point to: ::
the inability to distinguish effectively between public and private institutional form :: the increasingly blurred line between profit and non-profit provision within the AP sector :: the complexity of the oversight and quality assurance regulators and different process of regulation operating within the field :: the lack of common features in the many and varied models of provision employed by different APs :: the sheer scale and pace of change within the market (existing new entrants emerging, growing, declining and exiting the market in substantial numbers). The authors conclude, “With such a wide variety of types of providers operating in privately funded higher education, making simple classifications is difficult.”47 It may be that multiple classifications (and with them numerous definitions) of APs are inevitable given the increasing diversity of form and function exhibited across the entire HE sector. Further, both the pace and forms of diversity are likely to grow given the increasing adoption of commercial disciplines by all HE providers seeking to respond effectively to the demands of an emergent competitive market in HE provision. Attempts to define APs through categorisation have proved universally problematic. This is neither surprising nor illogical given the growing diversity 45 46 47
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 111-2. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 112. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 15.
19
Access and equity
of institutional form and alternate modes of provision witnessed across higher education both at home and abroad. The objective in seeking to define alternative provision should not therefore focus upon the achievement of a single definition or categorisation. The evolving characteristics of the HE sector itself and the diversity of provision that this evolution promotes, precludes achievement of a single definition. Faced with similar definitional problems, international experience determines the logical and pragmatic response for policy makers is to move toward definition through the implementation of a comprehensive system of registration of all HE providers. Adoption of such a system would bring with it the added benefits of addressing the current opaque and limited reporting performance of APs regarding student progression and destination; within this system APs should be required to provide (by annual return to HESA or an identified independent agency), appropriate data in this respect. Failure to comply would promote investigation, sanction and possible removal from the register. Domestic policy makers should therefore focus upon adoption of a mandatory, comprehensive system of registration that identifies all of the different actors in the market.
Conclusions :: ::
::
::
By their nature and diverse form APs defy singular definition. Multiple attempts by scholars and practitioners to design effective classifications of APs through a single definition are flawed due to the indivisibility of form and function witnessed across the sector and through the lack of mutually exclusive criteria by which to segment or categorise them effectively. Mandatory registration - in effect a ‘self-defining’ gateway to access to operate in the HE market place, offers a better basis for defining APs in practical terms. The creation alongside a mandatory registration scheme of a publicly available database that reflects the distinctive institutional status and mode of provision of APs (reflecting standardised performance measurement reporting across the HE sector), provides a more pragmatic and sufficient basis for identification and regulation of APs.
20
Access and equity
Case Study New College of the Humanities: Teaching and learning is a core competence Combining academic rigour and relevance
New College of the Humanities set out to create a learning experience delivering more quality contact between student and academic. 97% of contact time is with an academic member of staff and students experience an average of 13.8 contact hours per week direct contact time in class.
How does the New College of the Humanities deliver this? An innovative approach to curriculum design and delivery
New College of the Humanities offers a unique, broader liberal arts curriculum comprising 20 modules – significantly more than the standard 12-module undergraduate degree. New award structures
Students graduate with the dual award of a University of London degree and the bespoke New College of the Humanities Diploma. Committed to teaching excellence
New College of the Humanities has a world-class team of professors with a reputation for academic excellence, supported by an enthusiastic and talented team of teaching staff. They are committed to both teaching and research. Encouraging professional skills development
All students take the Professional Programme as part of their core studies. This includes seminars covering key skills and behaviours including writing and presenting, negotiation, financial literacy, working in teams, marketing, research methods, core principles of strategy, planning and decision-making, and statistics. 63% of NCH students’ academic experience had exceeded their expectations. That’s double the level of Russell Group universities (28% average)*.
*HEPI 2014 Student Academic Experience Survey
21
Access and equity
:: 4 Opportunities and barriers for growth Growth in Alternative Provision in the UK HE market place Problems of definition aside, “growth in private sector provision is an inevitable consequence of the expansion in demand for higher education provision and services domestically and still more internationally.”48 Anecdotal evidence suggests that the growth and development of APs in the United Kingdom mirrors the broad international trends cited in section 1. Successive studies highlight the important role that APs play in developing innovation in the UK HE sector and with it, promoting the opportunity for new product development and product extension across the sector as a whole. The emergence of a variety of different types of institutional partnership and joint provision further support this view.49 Review of the literature suggests that APs have proven adept and flexible in meeting previously unmet needs and demands of employers and students, especially in discrete, vocationally driven disciplines. They maintain a clear focus on student retention and progression, student employability and the needs of employers. The Universities UK report supports this view and concludes, “these [alternative] providers are growing rapidly and, from a student perspective, the fact that UK higher education now offers a greater choice of institutions within which to study (at different levels of cost) must be a positive point.”50 The growth of alternative provision is clearly beneficial to the agencies themselves and to the promotion of greater student choice, but it also supports the development of the UK HE market as a whole. The focus upon professional and vocational provision allied to specialisms in employment led skills draws a broader cross section of students into HE provision. Through new and varied partnerships with the established HE sector, APs are also instrumental in creating new forms of course delivery and alternative sources of 48 49 50
Universities UK (2010) “The growth in private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. P45. Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (2013) “Privately funded providers of higher education in the UK.” BIS P 60. Universities UK (2010) “The growth in private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. P 25.
22
Access and equity
income generation beneficial to both parties. The following key benefits to the HE sector as a whole emanate from the growth in APs: :: ::
:: :: :: ::
::
A clear focus on the importance, and effective delivery of teaching Curriculum identification, design and implementation that reflects employer needs and develops resonant competencies to meet those needs New models of academic provision supported by alternate, less costly business models A strong focus on meeting the rounded needs of the student with flexible entry, delivery and timing of educational provision The development of teaching centric career pathways for academic staff Opportunities for new forms of partnership with the established HE sector through accreditation/validation which extends the depth and reach of provision and diversifies income sources New entry pathways to more established HE institutional provision for both domestic students from wider socio economic backgrounds and for international students progressing to higher qualifications in mainstream HE provision.51
The impact of public policy It is not surprising then that the coalition government have consistently supported the advancement of alternative provision in the delivery of higher education. Indeed, publication of its 2011 White Paper, ‘Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System’, marked an important governmental acknowledgement of the key role expected of APs in realising the government’s ambitions to transform the HE sector. Previously dominated by a supply driven, grant based market approach to both the regulation and the funding of the HE sector, the White Paper anticipates the adoption of a more heterogeneous, demand-led model; a model characterised by a new market-based funding system, liberalised student number controls, and lower barriers to entry for new providers.52 In so doing government can hope to achieve important strategic objectives – the relief in part of growing pressure on the public purse, addressing the growing demand for a broader range of HE offers in an economically viable manner, promoting a more sustainable HE sector, improving the student experience, and widening access to a broader range of delivery institutions. 51 52
Universities UK (2010) “The growth in private and for-profit HE providers in the UK.” Universities UK. London. March 2010. P 46. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), (2011). “Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System,” June 2011. Accessible at: www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heartpp.
23
Access and equity
Further, the government have actively promoted attendant reforms to the regulatory structure and financing of student access that could enable APs to become recognised and defined within an expanded system of access and control across the entire HE sector – helping APs to achieve greater parity of esteem and equal treatment within that system. “We want to see more investment, greater diversity, including innovative forms of delivery from further education colleges and others, and less centralised control over student numbers. But, in return, we want the sector to be more accountable to students, as well as to the taxpayer.”53
This is, or should be, good news for APs. Immediate past Universities Minister David Willetts has been a consistent and powerful advocate on their part, “The biggest lesson I have learned is that the most powerful driver of reform is to let new providers into the system. They do things differently in ways none can predict. They drive reform across the sector.”54
But the coalition government have failed to bring forward the necessary primary legislation to deliver these changes in a clear, consistent and coherent manner; relying instead on piecemeal regulatory change that remains unbalanced in both its pace and application between APs and the established university sector, and which in consequence, continues to deliver inequitable treatment to APs.55
Barriers to future growth in Alternative Provision It is important to recognise that there have been some notable, positive initiatives implemented by government in the past three years. The adoption of a market based approach to resource allocation for HE teaching centred around student choice and supported by the adoption of market dynamics - has begun the process of recalibrating the funding base of HE provision and with it, the opportunity for APs to be recognised, included and able to compete more equitably alongside the established university sector. But in advancing and implementing significant structural change to the public funding system of HE, the government has not delivered a revised regulatory framework that supports and enables that system to operate in a coherent, consistent and equitable manner for all parties subject to it. As Hillman (2014) has commented, 53 54 55
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), (2011). “Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System,” June 2011. Page. 2.Accessible at: www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heartpp D Willetts (2011), ‘Making the higher education system more efficient and diverse’, speech to Universities UK Spring Conference. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/speeches/universities-uk-spring-conference-2011 Hillman N. (2014) “Unfinished business ?: higher education legislation.” HEPI Report 65. Higher Education Policy Institute. 2014.
24
Access and equity
“the third element of the white paper – a more diverse higher education system – was rooted in the assumption of a new legal framework.”56
The current system of regulation, designed to meet the discrete needs of just one type of provider (universities) does not have the capacity to meet the distinctive needs and challenges facing APs. APs continue to face significant barriers to their future growth. These barriers include: ::
::
::
::
::
:: 56
APs without university title and with distinctive (i.e. for profit) forms continue to face difficulties in achieving market entry in an efficient and equitable manner by comparison with the established universities. As the BIS study clearly demonstrates, many APs are small businesses operating in a highly congested and competitive market place and will remain so, despite their growth ambitions. They face all of the consequent challenges associated with SME growth to scale, operational effectiveness and the achievement of long-term sustainability The rules and regulations currently in place were not designed to address the new and developing provision introduced into the market by a diverse range of ‘different’ APs. APs sit uneasily within the existing regulatory system which they find overly complex, confusing, and subject to misinterpretation. They incur disproportionate delay and cost in meeting the requirements of Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs) and university title. The process of quality assurance review imposes academic and governance constraints upon them that are not always applicable to the nature of service provision delivered. The established processes and procedures governing regulation, quality assurance and access to funding are not transparent to APs. The regulatory system was designed, managed and is delivered by those with great knowledge of the attributes of the established universities, but with little or no knowledge of the attributes associated with APs. This leads to persistent perceptions of unfair or inequitable treatment of APs. There are multiple levels of decision-making that must be successfully traversed and numerous different agencies that must be satisfied if APs are to gain market entry and grow their market position. This can place a larger administrative burden on APs. A cost and time imposition that the established universities, with whom they compete, do not incur. Inclusion within designated course provider status has provided APs with access to student loan funding. But a ‘level playing field’ with the
Hillman N. (2014) “Unfinished business ?: higher education legislation.” HEPI Report 65. Higher Education Policy Institute. 2014.
25
Access and equity
::
::
established universities has not been achieved, despite the rhetoric and promised intentions of government. The removal of the cap on students numbers announced in the 2013 autumn statement57 is good news for the established universities and for prospective students. By contrast, retaining the cap on Alternate Providers at 2012/13 recruitment levels, stifles their own opportunities for growth and places them in competitive disadvantage with the established universities with whom they compete for student places. The government has indicated that it will endevour to remove the cap to ‘low risk’ APs from 2015/16 but has not yet indicated which organisations might be included as ‘low risk’ and how this will be determined. The net result for APs is continuing uncertainty. The treatment of APs in the management of international student visa status and employment is discriminatory and disproportionate to risk. APs have witnessed a significant downturn in demand from international students as a result.58
Conclusions ::
:: ::
::
::
57 58
Government continues to express support for further growth in Alternative Provider provision linked to liberal reform of the English HE market and changes introduced to the allocation of public funding to it. Through achievement of same government can achieve a range of its own strategic objectives for HE provision. APs have brought innovation, cost and price efficiency, and new forms of partnership and collaboration to the English HE market. Despite a restrictive regulatory environment, they continue to grow. Despite this, attendant reform of the HE regulatory system, necessary to legitimise and provide equity in treatment for APs, has not been achieved. As a consequence, APs face disproportionate barriers and burdens to their growth aspirations from a restrictive regulatory environment that is inequitable and anti-competitive.
HMSO (2013) “Autumn statement 2013.” HMSO CM847. ID 2605954 35063 12/13. Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. Higher Education Policy Institute.
26
Access and equity
Case Study BIMM: ‘Best Connected’ to business is a core competence Staying close to industry needs
In the music business the secret to success is no secret. If you want to make it in music, you’ve got to get connected. The changing nature of the music business has created a growing demand for higher level skills. That’s why BIMM takes students with talent and the will to work hard, and makes them better connected to the music industry than anybody else.
How does BIMM deliver this? Teaching delivered by musicians for musicians
Students work with world class tutors, every one of them still active in the contemporary music business. They are dedicated teachers as well as working professionals who are in the classroom because of their commitment to education. A dedicated alumni careers programme: ‘The A-Team’.
Alumni actively contribute to the ongoing study programmes within BIMM, working across a diverse range of roles including A&R, PR, marketing, radio and TV plugging, live agents, promoters, publishing, venues and studios, song writing companies, managers, music journalists, TV and radio broadcasting and in tour management. Work based learning
Each BIMM course is highly vocational and is designed to act as a springboard into employment. Work-based learning is an essential part of this process and involves actively using the workplace as a learning environment. Leveraging industry links to enhance the student experience
BIMM has developed unique links with the music industry and uses its extensive contacts to generate opportunities for students to engage with the music industry through performance, placements, tailored projects, shadowing professional at live performances and through secondment. “Working at Sony was an amazing experience, I learned so much and was able to meet frontline artists. I came to appreciate first hand how the modules I am studying at BIMM are truly relevant and applicable in the real world of the music industry.” TOM BECK Foundation Degree Graduate
27
Access and equity
:: 5 Higher Education reform & Alternative Providers To explore more fully the challenges and opportunities facing APs and the barriers that must be overcome if they are to achieve parity of esteem through the regulatory system and in market operation, we undertook a series of detailed semi-structured interviews with key HE stakeholder groups. Participants in the research were identified in three key stakeholder groupings – APs themselves (11), HE Umbrella/Representative Bodies (5) and HE Regulatory Bodies (4). A full list of respondents is included in appendix 1 of this report. Interview questions were developed from the analysis and conclusions drawn from the literature review findings reported in the previous sections of this report. Interviews were conducted under the Chatham House rule in order to support the fullest possible participation. All cited quotations are consequently indicative of the findings achieved.
1. Demand led drivers for change in domestic HE provision We found wide agreement across all respondents that the pace of change in the provision of HE was having a profound impact on the nature of the domestic HE environment. Respondents reported a growth in variation of programme design, delivery and application; a widening variety of institutional forms operating both within and across the established university sector and beyond it; increased complexity and some real resulting confusion in the operation of the funding base of the sector; as well as public policy prescription from government and from elsewhere that enhanced the confusion and contradiction in establishing and maintaining appropriate operating practices. The growing internationalisation of the HE market place and the new competitive demands that this was placing upon all providers were noted by all respondents, but only a small minority attributed these macro competitive forces with the key pressing challenges confronting the domestic HE environment. Internal pressure for change from within the domestic HE context was seen by 28
Access and equity
the vast majority of respondents as more pressing and urgent than the broader context delivered through growing international competition. APs pointed to the ‘continuing predominance of the traditional public sector model of HE provision’, as a major source of frustration in their ability to access the market in an equitable or timely manner. Further, the dominance of the established university domestic HE model continues to impact negatively on the ability of AP’s to ‘fit’ effectively within the structures and regulatory system in an efficient and effective manner. Specific concerns were expressed around the following three key issues:
1 – The failure of piecemeal changes in regulation to meet the pragmatic needs of new entrants Although there was clear and supportive recognition of the changes made to the procedures associated with the attainment of University title and DAPs, for those Alternative Provider institutions that had either progressed through this process, or that aspired to do so, the practical implementation of the current regulatory system was still widely regarded as a series of overly restrictive obstacles, administered by professionals steeped in and wedded to one particular mode of operation, who did not fully understand the business models they were being asked to adjudicate. A minority of respondents attributed this to wilful protectionism on the part of the established university sector. All pointed toward reform of the quality assurance process associated with access to university title, degree awarding powers, course designation and attainment of highly trusted status as a necessary requirement if equitable and supportive regulation of APs was to be achieved.
2 – A continuing mismatch between strong rhetorical support toward ‘opening – up’ a market based approach to HE provision, but little practical understanding of this amongst established HE providers and regulators Concerns were expressed by all APs interviewed that HE remained ‘the most conservative sector in our society’. Despite the welcomed rhetorical support for the AP sector and the marketisation of HE promoted by the coalition government - thus far - the ‘embedded self- interest’ of the existing mainstream HE sector was seen by the vast majority of AP respondents to continue to dominate. The continued retention of the student loan cap at £6K for APs and the selective imposition of student number controls on APs distorts the equitable operation of the current HE market. The continuing dominance and imposition of the ‘university’ model of academic governance and quality assurance on APs often lacks applicability, economic viability and effectiveness in Alternative Provider contexts. 29
Access and equity
APs pointed to a continuing lack of understanding of their distinctive operating models (by comparison with the University sector) as a major inhibitor to their continued sustainability and opportunities for growth. They were concerned that current requirements associated with the quality assurance process were designed to apply solely to the mainstream university model of governance and HE provision. ‘There is a big division between public and alternative sectors: they are not subject to the same rules; there is not a level playing field; there is no proper market.’ Alternative Provider
Whilst there was broad agreement from all respondents that quality assurance should be assessed and entrenched across the HE sector, there were real concerns expressed by APs regarding the specific structures and functions required within the current inspection processes. These concerns were seen as emanating from a lack of understanding of the operating models employed by APs. ‘There remains a strong feeling in the AP sector that these providers are being ‘done to’, rather than being involved in decision-making.’ H E Umbrella Body
Allied concerns were also expressed regarding the appointment procedures and knowledge base ascribed to quality assurance inspection panellists. Here again, these concerns were seen as emanating from a lack of understanding of the operating models employed by APs. A number of APs and Umbrella Bodies argued strongly for a broader representation of skills and experience (including relevant commercial experience) to be required in the membership of investigating panels moving forward.
3 – A widespread view amongst the Alternative Providers interviewed that recent specific changes in regulation have been discriminatory and unfair to them Issues pertaining to access apart aside, there continues to be a widely held view across the APs interviewed that recent regulatory changes have impacted negatively on their ability to sustain current levels of operation, let alone in being supportive in enabling them to grow. APs pointed to the differential status regarding access to state support toward undergraduate fee levels (£6k to £9K) and the application upon them of student number controls as discriminatory and unjust. One international AP considered themselves ‘let down’ by government in this respect whilst others concluded that these changes are ‘fundamentally wrong’. Particular concerns were raised with regard to the treatment of APs and their 30
Access and equity
international students (in terms of right to work) in the Home Office/UKBA management of Institutional Highly Trusted Status. Whilst there was widespread support for the removal of bogus institutions from those APs interviewed, there was very real concern expressed that having achieved the same quality assurance demands asked of mainstream universities, international students attending AP programmes remain unable to work simply through the ‘legal technicality’ of the APs institutional status. Finally, continuing uncertainty in the management of market conditions by government and regulatory bodies, coupled with a lack of clarity associated with the regulatory system employed to manage the market, have a profoundly negative impact on the ability of institutions to attract potential external investment moving forward. For APs this is a critical factor impacting directly on both their current financial viability and their future growth aspirations.
2. Definitional issues Sector wide definition There was widespread agreement across all participating groups that the HE sector is becoming increasingly diverse. The impact of this diversity is seen in all parts of the HE sector and is breaking down the traditional means by which the sector itself, and the key parties operating within it, can be effectively defined. All of the higher education umbrella groups interviewed, representing a wide range of different HE providers, commented on the growing development of more complex (often hybrid) institutional forms – many capable of transcending previously held definitions within the sector and making it increasingly difficult to demarcate APs as a single homogenous group operating within the broader HE sector. ‘The traditional boundary between the public and private sector is eroding, not least because the traditional sector is changing rapidly and seeking to diversify income streams away from public sector block grant income.’ Umbrella Body
There appeared a growing recognition, not least amongst those institutions more commonly associated with the established university sector, that previous definitions of both the scope of the HE sector itself and the actors that comprise it, was now difficult to sustain. ‘HE is a spectrum rather than a binary model of public and private institutions, and this is likely to continue to be the case as a result of changes on both sides.’ Umbrella Body
31
Access and equity
Defining Alternative Providers Concern was expressed by the vast majority of APs interviewed that any form of single definition of Alternative Provider was simply not feasible given the heterogeneous nature of the actors involved in its provision. Some respondents recognised that it might be possible to stratify or segment APs without this process leading to any clear definition of single type or form, ‘The alternative provider sector is a very diverse sector, in terms of subject areas taught; the size of the organisation (for which student numbers is the best measure); and the ownership structures and constitution – whether for profit, not for profit or lifestyle business.’ Alternative Provider
This view was broadly supported across all respondents, including the majority of the higher education umbrella and regulatory organisations more closely associated with established university provision.
A more diverse HE sector Is regarded positively The trend toward greater diversity in HE provision, both by institutional form and by the type, purpose and scope of the provision provided, was broadly welcomed as a positive development by all parties interviewed within this research. Whilst it was recognised that greater diversity in HE provision brings with it challenges and problems associated with clarity of definition and categorisation moving forward, it was also readily accepted that the growing focus on the needs and concerns of the student, together with the opportunities for enhanced student choice that greater diversity in HE delivers, are both important and positive developments across the contemporary HE sector as a whole. Regulators and umbrella bodies consulted as part of this research were clear and concerned not to impugn APs in attempting to define them. The majority reported that they actively disliked the term ‘Alternative Provider’ and chose actively to not use it; not least because it failed to capture the positive contribution that they felt many AP’s deliver to the HE sector. They were concerned that the use of the term itself carried with it negative rather than positive connotations, defining APs by what they are not, rather than outlining the positive contribution that they make to HE provision as a whole. There was strong support across all the respondents interviewed – not least from the regulatory bodies consulted – for the inclusion of APs within a revised, inclusive and comprehensive regulatory regime, supported by a system(s) of registration encompassing all HE providers and in so doing, defining them and the parameters of the HE sector moving forward. 32
Access and equity
The following contribution summed up the generally held view that ‘There is still a massive failure to understand the diversity of the AP sector. Not all the traditional providers understand each other and there is a great gulf of understanding between the alternative and the traditional sectors. There is no alternative sector as such, there is great variability within it.’ Alternative Provider
Non-profit, for-profit institutional status There was some support expressed from a minority of those interviewed for a definition of alternative provision based solely upon a simple non-profit, for-profit distinction. Taken in isolation, the distribution of profit was not seen as either an adequate or an effective means by which to define Alternative Provision. Alternatively, clear common ground emerged in these research findings around a focus upon strategic intent and achieved operational performance in relation to stated institutional purpose as a basis for establishing the necessary and sufficiently clear bone fides associated with the right to engage in HE provision regardless of profit/non-profit status. Purpose here was most commonly identified and associated with the needs of the student – a clear focus on maximising both the breadth and depth of student choice; supporting and protecting this choice through access to transparent, accessible and clear information; the development of a broader range of measurement metrics forming part of the information made available to students and against which institutional effectiveness might be judged by regulators and by others. One issue however, continues to prompt debate and potential cause for concern amongst a significant range of respondents – namely, organisational change of ownership linked to for-profit provision. Here there were calls from a minority of respondents for a ‘public good’ test as a potential requirement for entry into any form of HE provider status. Others (a majority of regulators consulted) argued for the inclusion of a ‘substantive change’ test at point of reported change of ownership for for-profit HE institutions. Such a test would establish the institutional bona fides of the new owners, clarify their institutional purpose and governance procedures, and provide satisfactory response to matters of financial probity/sustainability, academic governance and quality of provision.
The case for greater mutual engagement and understanding It was clear from the findings of our research that the higher education regulatory and umbrella bodies were still at a very early stage in gaining a full appreciation of the scope and diversity of alternative provision in higher education. 33
Access and equity
All reported that they had begun to develop an initial engagement with segments of the alternative provider market. The majority indicated that their focus in this respect was on the larger APs - those demarcated by attainment of degree awarding powers and/or degree course designated status. There was a general recognition amongst all respondents that further engagement was necessary in order to develop a deeper mutual appreciation of the needs and demands placed upon both parties. All of the higher education umbrella and regulatory organisations participating in this research approached the development of greater diversity in the provision of higher education in a positive manner and they recognised the important role that APs are already playing in helping to achieve this. But for the majority of the higher education regulators consulted in this research, engagement with the alternative provider market stretched their own existing terms of reference to the limit – in some cases beyond it. Respondents from these organisations pointed to the accelerated pace of change in both the regulation and the operating practices present in the higher education market as a growing source of concern for them in their continued ability to manage the existing system of higher education regulation in a consistent and effective manner. The parallel growth in APs through this period added further pressure on a system not designed specifically with their concerns in mind. For their part, the vast majority of APs consulted in this research pointed to a clear lack of understanding and comprehension within the higher education regulatory system of the characteristic business models, culture, strategic imperatives and operational strictures within which APs must operate effectively if they are to sustain themselves and the students they seek to support. This previous lack of detailed understanding of the scope and nature of alternative provision amongst mainstream HE regulatory bodies, goes some way toward explaining the inadequate and often (as they perceive it) inequitable treatment that many APs reported as being their experience of the existing processes associated with market entry and quality assurance. The current system was simply not designed with their inclusion in mind.
3. Positive attributes associated with a more diverse HE sector Participants in this research identified a range of positive impacts delivered by APs in promoting a more diverse domestic HE sector.
34
Access and equity
A clear focus on market orientation: a concern for specialised, niche provision Some concerns were raised by a minority of respondents regarding the attendant ‘marketisation’ of Higher Education and the adoption of supply side reforms promoting a stronger focus upon competition in the HE market place alongside the promotion of diversity of provision. But these concerns were tempered by the recognition (from those raising these concerns and by others) that the globalisation of the knowledge economy placed structural pressures on the UK HE system to liberalise its competitive base. Yet it was also recognised that it was unlikely that structural reform of the financing of undergraduate HE provision already in place was likely to be reversed in any significant manner post 2015. More significantly, there was general agreement expressed across all respondent groups that APs demonstrated a tangible commitment to the needs of the consumer both in programme design and delivery and in delivering value for money (price), convenience (flexibility in course provision) and relevance (employability) to students. Awareness and regard for market forces is a core component of the AP DNA, without it they are unlikely to survive and sustain themselves. All the respondents in this research supported the view that this close attention to the significance of market forces promotes a highly distinctive culture within APs, prompting them to be ‘forward thinking’ and ‘open’ in seeking out new markets, fostering innovative provision and niche activities that might otherwise go unidentified by more established HE institutions. The size of APs relative to the breadth of offer and volume of turnover witnessed across the established university sector, enhances their focus on subject specialisation, niche provision, reaching out and addressing new markets with distinctive programme propositions offered in alternate formats. Respondents to this research were supportive of the role of APs in focusing upon a single subject or discipline area. There was recognition that this afforded opportunities for a deep understanding of customer needs and the benefits sought from HE – be it the demand side needs of potential customers in the form of student preferences, or in meeting the supply side needs of customers in terms of employers addressing labour and specific skills shortages. The clear focus on employer needs demanded of APs if their programmes are to remain relevant and viable in competitive markets, engenders further opportunities for mutual collaboration with industry in programme design and delivery that are warmly embraced by APs.
35
Access and equity
Additionally, APs reported that attention to market forces brings with it a central concern with cost control, revenue management, return on investment which lies at the heart of programme identification, design and delivery. In turn this drives cost efficiencies enabling price concession and greater consumer access to HE provision. Whilst noting the positive virtues associated with rigorous attention to financial detail outlined above, umbrella groups and in particular regulatory groups expressed concern that academic quality be removed from financial stringency.
Institutional flexibility, responsiveness & innovation There was broad agreement across all respondent groups that APs demonstrate a willingness to embrace innovation, flexibility and responsiveness at the core of their operating practice. Be it in programme identification, design and delivery, or in searching out and extending the reach of HE to new and otherwise underrepresented target audiences, all respondents to this research noted the distinctive and positive role played by APs in these respects. The fact that APs tend to be smaller, highly specialised and focused upon the particular needs of discrete industry and key student audiences were seen as positive factors - driving flexibility, innovative practice and responsiveness both to industry needs and to the delivery of quality in student experience. Closeness to markets – both geographically and in being responsive to changes in demand and professional work based skills, were also seen as positive contributions to innovative practice enjoyed by many of the APs consulted in this research. This is not to promote the view that APs harbour exclusive rights to innovation in HE practice – this view was not preferred. Rather, the case was made that at the margins of current mainstream HE provision, APs are well placed to identify, develop and sustain new and variant forms of programme delivery that might currently prove unsustainable within the established mainstream university context. Umbrella bodies and university institutional partners both pointed toward the growing importance of collaboration between APs and the established university sector in the design and delivery of validated course provision as providing an important source of ‘extended reach’ for the university, alongside the opportunity to ‘seed test’ new forms of HE provision in a cost effective manner. APs and regulators both pointed to the absence of regulation or the relatively ‘light touch’ of regulation impacting on APs operating outside the preserve of University status, degree awarding powers or undergraduate course designation. Whilst some respondents saw the light touch of regulation as important in promoting innovation in programme identification, design and delivery, concerns 36
Access and equity
were also raised regarding the lack of regulation of APs and the current ability of the APs themselves, and the established regulatory environment to meet accepted standards of academic quality in a consistent manner. Higher education regulatory bodies and those focused more on the representation of the established university sector recognised that the imposition of a laden bureaucratic structure of regulatory control on APs (regulation that might extend beyond those APs operating as Universities, achieving degree awarding powers or degree course designation) would likely stifle existing levels of innovation. They were equally clear however that the maintenance of quality assurance through effective regulation was critical to the higher education sector as a whole if the continued wellbeing of the UK higher education sector brand was to be assured. For their part APs were not unsupportive of regulation per se – all supported the development of an inclusive and comprehensive system of registration of HE providers capturing APs within its compass. Concerns focused more on the need for greater understanding by regulators of the distinctive governance and operating practices appropriate to Alternative Provider provision, and due account of this in the practical administration of the regulatory process.
University validation of alternative provider programmes Validation of Alternative Provider programmes (at pathway, undergraduate and postgraduate levels) by the established university sector was widely regarded as an important ‘win win’ opportunity for all parties concerned in actively promoting greater flexibility, innovation and institutional responsiveness across the sector. There was broad agreement that University validation of AP provision should be actively supported and promoted by government moving forward; and that provisions designed specifically to support the expansion of this approach should be accommodated within a revised, comprehensive regulatory regime for HE. Established Universities pointed to the positive advantages such relationships were driving for them in promoting wider and deeper industry/and employer engagement: providing practical, cost effective opportunities for the university to widen participation and meet their social mobility aspirations and in enabling new and innovative course designation to meet graduate level quality and appreciation. For their part APs reported excellent partnership relations with validating universities, providing them with strong institutional governance and academic quality assurance support, as well as positive brand association with the established university sector and recognition and endorsement of the graduate status of the subjects/programmes supplied by them. A revised and comprehensive system of regulation of the HE sector should 37
Access and equity
accommodate university validation of AP provision in a clear and consistent manner. It was argued by some respondents that opportunities exist for the rationalisation of current validation activity and procedures around ‘identified common good practice’. Key issues cited indicated that the design and administration of future validation procedures associated with university validation of AP provision should reflect a clear commitment to promoting and widening student choice; supporting and protecting students in making that choice; the importance of graduate employment opportunities to student advancement and an appropriate approach to the regulation of academic quality assurance that supports the achievement of same, without duplicating or overlaying restrictive regulation.
A central focus on the student and the student experience as the core competences driving institutional sustainability
Finally, a broad consensus emerged across all respondent groups that the attainment of effective student choice, and the protection of students in making that choice, remain the two most important strategic outcomes to be achieved through transition to a more diverse HE sector. Whilst there was debate as to whether or not the further advance of market forces was the most appropriate way to achieve these ends, all respondents agreed that a focus on the student‘s ability to make a clear and protected choice regarding their higher education should lie at the heart of a more equitable and diverse HE system. A number of respondents called for student centric public funding of HE provision to follow the attainment of credits by the student (and with them, academic/ student progression), rather than being structured simply around the academic year. APs reported a clear and consistent focus on the needs of the student as the central driver to their institutional prosperity and sustainability. Attendant to this is their reported prime concern with course programme identification, design and implementation that reflects the needs of students. In turn, this drives their strong commitment to teaching and learning quality through the delivery of a balanced portfolio of academic knowledge, vocational skills development and employment readiness. These were cited repeatedly by APs as the core strategic and operational imperatives that drive effective and efficient programme provision and institutional viability. Their significance was also reported in encouraging a parallel consideration to prioritise engagement and partnership with employers and selected industries/ commercial sectors of choice, linked to programme delivery. 38
Access and equity
APs reported multiple forms of engagement with the commercial sector in the delivery by them of a wide range of different academic and vocational programmes. Forms of engagement cited ranged from inclusion of employers within the governance and the academic governance of the institution; partnership in programme design, validation and delivery; joint curriculum development, skill sharing, support to students for transition to employment and student mentoring. APs presented a real concern and consideration to meet the needs of employers and the employability of their students through a strong engagement with vocational skills development as an integral component of academic achievement. This commitment not only sought to drive resonant graduate employment outcomes but often proved the source of innovative programme design and delivery. By explicitly seeking to embed vocational skills learning alongside academic attainment that is informed by practitioner experience, APs regard their commitment to widening student access as critical in the achievement of their mission and purpose as well as being a central business imperative that drives institutional performance. Identifying new markets for student engagement with HE products developed explicitly with industry and employment needs in mind, drives new and innovative types of provision into the market place. Whilst often niche and specialised in scope and volume, these programmes nonetheless deliver a highly tailored teaching and learning experience that meets a wider range of prospective student needs. Umbrella groups and regulatory bodies supported this broad view but questioned the capacity of the existing regulatory system to accord appropriate determination of academic assurance both in terms of the precise academic governance arrangements in place within APs and in the determination of appropriate quality assurance in different cases. In order to achieve a more student centric approach within a diverse HE competitive environment, there was broad consensus that the metrics against which HE provision is judged should be amended and/or expanded. The BIS research reported relatively low levels of engagement by APs in the maintenance and report of student progression and outcome data at the current time. New measures requiring all designated degree course providers to provide more detailed statistics to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and to the Office of the independent Adjudicator (OIA) are welcomed in this respect. Our research indicates that APs (or at least those APs seeking to promote designated undergraduate degree programmes) are increasingly focusing upon the development and implementation of more sophisticated performance outcome measurement, both to communicate and promote their own performance to 39
Access and equity
their key customer audiences (students and employers) in a manner that is more compelling to them, and because the delivery of outcome performance data directly promotes more effective and safeguarded student choice. All the respondents to this research focused on the importance of developing a clear and consistent approach to the design and delivery of standardised performance measurement data, required and applied consistently across all HE provider institutions regardless of their institutional form. Required and consistent data capture, analysis and public dissemination of student outcome performance metrics were widely accepted across all respondents as a necessary component in driving effectiveness and equity in the deliverance of institutional accountability - to the market, to customers (existing and new), and to regulatory and financing authorities. A balanced scorecard approach providing assurance of academic quality alongside data impacting student satisfaction, retention, progression, attainment and employability was widely supported. Additional metrics focusing upon social mobility, student complaints, financial turnover and return on investment were also raised as potential elements of a broader set of measurement criteria focused more toward the attainment of effective HE outcomes rather than the current concentration within the established university sector upon student recruitment criteria (i.e. input measures). Critically, there was broad agreement across all respondents that all HE providers should operate under a statuary requirement to provide clear, consistent, and coherent performance measurement data to the relevant regulatory authority. Not only was this viewed as the most practical way of ensuring adequate protection for the choices that students would be required to make, it was also regarded as important in supporting the achievement of a more equitable HE market place moving forward.
Toward a unified system of regulation Finally a series of questions were introduced to explore the current standing of the system of regulation of HE together with proposals for its amendment. There was broad agreement across all respondents that the current system of regulation of HE was out of step with the contemporary HE environment. More specifically in the context of this research, deficiencies in the current system of regulation of HE was highlighted by a majority of respondents as the single most restrictive factor affecting both the current viability and the future growth prospects of APs within the HE sector. A clear consensus emerged from our research findings that the current system of regulation was outdated, inefficient and lacking in consistent application across 40
Access and equity
an increasingly diverse HE sector, Amongst APs it was seen as inequitable in structure and in application, and neither coherent nor comprehensive in scope or purpose. There was clear support expressed across all groups (APs, Umbrella Bodies and Regulatory Bodies) of the need for primary legislation to address the current inadequacies and inequities present within the current system of regulation. There was also a broad agreement across all respondent groups regarding the principles that should underpin the design an application of future regulation. Namely an expressed focus on: :: :: :: ::
The assurance of academic quality The assurance of appropriate Corporate Governance The assurance of financial probity, viability and sustainability A clearer division of powers and responsibility between those bodies held responsible for adjudicating academic quality, those responsible for assuring appropriate corporate governance and those responsible for applying the distribution of public funds to support higher education provision (particularly teaching provision) :: The provision of accessible, transparent and relevant data to key stakeholder groups :: Provision for effective risk assessment and market exit :: Safeguards to promote effective student choice :: Definition of all HE providers through adoption of a comprehensive register of HE providers :: Rationalisation of regulatory bodies under the auspice of a strategic lead regulator. All the APs included within this research welcomed the inclusion of APs within a revised, comprehensive, regulatory framework for HE. However, the majority of these respondents expressed real concerns that the system of regulation adopted should be grounded upon the achievement of a ‘level playing field’ for all HE providers. In this respect, concerns were expressed that future regulation should be: :: :: :: ::
Inclusive and comprehensive of all HE providers - domestic and international providers Mindful of and neutral toward alternate funding and operating models Proportionate to the size, volume and nature of HE delivery proposed or achieved Non-discriminatory and transparent in design, administration and delivery 41
Access and equity
::
Supported by staff with a broad range of academic and relevant commercial experience. A significant minority of respondents proposed additional principles that might be contained within future regulation: ::
A public good test: the degree to which organisational purpose and resources are invested toward the public good associated with HE :: A substantive change test – where ownership of an HE Provider is transferred from one party to another the quality assurance processes associated with market entry and/or market participation should be revisited. Whilst these latter two provisions were not identified as necessary by the majority of APs included within this research, it is interesting to note that no identified concern was raised to the prospect of a substantive change test amongst the APs consulted.
Conclusion The findings from this research indicate a widespread recognition of progression toward greater diversity in the provision of higher education. Respondents were aware and broadly supportive of the increasing role played by APs in promoting greater diversity in HE provision; and in so doing, providing a wider spectrum of choice to students both from established constituencies and from sections of the community previously under-represented in higher education. Respondents whose focus had previously been directed toward the established university sector none the less were keen to embrace alternative provision within the context of broader market reform of HE and a growing regard for the central importance of the student and provision of effective and secure student choice within this process. APs themselves were clear about the scope and nature of the benefits that they believe they deliver to students, to employers and to the established university sector itself as their role and activity develops further. ::
::
::
A focus upon clearly defined areas of specialism and niche provision responding nimbly to market demand and emerging market needs that other providers are unable or choose not to meet. The development of alternate, often innovative, models of programme design and delivery; designed explicitly to meet emerging needs, market demand and the particular demands of new and otherwise disenfranchised target audiences. Closeness to industry and to the geographic communities that they seek to serve; promoting a commitment to the integration of vocational skills 42
Access and equity
development alongside academic attainment as a core competence in programme design, in teaching and learning and in measurable student attainment. :: A clear focus on the needs of the student and the responsiveness of the HE provider to those needs. Reflecting the role that both will play in the development of a more competitive, market based approach to the financing and delivery of HE provision moving forward. :: A clear, pragmatic commitment to widening student access and the promotion of social mobility delivered as a cornerstone of their business operating models and continued commercial viability. :: A central focus upon cost efficiency and service delivery (the total student experience) as core drivers of greater institutional effectiveness, quality of provision and financial sustainability. :: A willingness to embrace opportunities for collaboration and partnership with the established university sector through validation and accreditation of their programmes, to the benefit of both parties and to students. :: A readiness to embrace registration and regulation (and through this institutional definition) as a discrete, but integral component of a broader, more pluralistic HE sector. Our research findings indicate that umbrella bodies and regulators more closely associated with the established university sector recognise the growing contribution (as identified above) delivered through alternative provision. Whilst concerns were expressed regarding quality assurance and financial sustainability, the challenges presented here were not seen as insurmountable, given future regulatory reform. All respondents agreed on the need to focus more centrally on the delivery of wider, more effective student choice; on the importance of safeguarding student choice and the student experience; and in providing consistent data and performance metrics to support these aims. Further, HE umbrella bodies and regulators expressed both a willingness and a positive commitment to understand the needs and concerns of APs more fully and to embrace the distinctive elements of their provision more effectively within their own remit. Finally, all those interviewed in connection with this research identified the necessity of legislative reform if inequities currently present in the existing system of regulation of higher education are to be addressed in an effective manner. A broad consensus emerged around the principles that should underpin legislative and regulatory reform moving forward. 43
Access and equity
Case Study University of Law: Developing new hybrid institutional forms and structures New Institutional forms and partnerships are developing across UK Higher Education in response to the competitive challenge of the global HE market and as a consequence domestic regulatory reforms. Responding more effectively to the needs of students and the expectant demands of employers, traditional demarcation between private and public sector provision is becoming increasingly less evident and relevant – diversity in provision promotes more effective student choice. The privately owned University of Law has been offering specialist qualifications tailored for the legal profession for over 100 years. Granted independent University status in 2012, in May 2014 the University of Law announced a ‘landmark higher education partnership’ with the University of Liverpool, one of the UK’s leading research-intensive Russell Group universities.
How did the University of Law deliver this: A public, private investment partnership in innovative teaching programmes
Demonstrating the ability to promote private investment in innovative teaching programmes, this new ‘strategic partnership’ will offer both joint and dual degree programmes in Law with Business & Management. Integrating academic excellence and vocational proficiency
The new programmes combine the academic strengths and professional focus of both organisations to deliver a unique combination of specialist knowledge and employability skills to students. Investing in new forms of provision
This shared approach to new programmes builds on the recent launch of the University of Law four year part-time degree, placing a strong emphasis on employability and professional legal skills. “This Government’s reforms were intended to promote new forms of delivering Higher Education, and I welcome this collaboration between The University of Law and the University of Liverpool as a product of those reforms. Both organisations have a fantastic track record of innovation in domestic and global markets and their collaboration will surely create new opportunities for young people entering the professional services sector.” The Rt. Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science. May 2014.
44
Access and equity
:: 6 The failure of the current regulatory system In the absence of primary legislation the government have sought to initiate a number of the proposals contained within the White Paper by other means. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Student Loans Company were invited to establish the Regulatory Partnership Group (RPG) in 2011. Comprising the principle HE regulators, it has sought to both rationalise the existing regulatory system whilst extending it to accommodate enhanced Alternative Provider engagement within its compass. In July 2013 the RPG published a revised, Operating Framework for Higher Education in England, as an interim measure whilst awaiting primary legislation. They set out the purpose of the framework thus: “The operating framework for higher education in England is designed to ensure accountability for public funding, protect the student interest, and safeguard institutional autonomy and academic freedom, the twin pillars on which the worldclass reputation of higher education in England rests.”59
They define the sector as comprising: ::
publicly funded universities and higher education colleges (collectively referred to as higher education institutions) :: further education colleges that offer higher education courses :: APs – organisations that provide higher education courses but are not higher education institutions or further education colleges; this includes privately funded colleges.60 There are two elements within the proposed revised system of regulation that are of particular note to APs: :: ::
59 60
inclusion by design rather than default within the specific regulations relating to designated course provider status the establishment by the HEFCE of a Register of Higher Education Provision.
HEFCE (2013) “Operating framework for higher education in england.” HEFCE. July 2013. Accessed at www.hefce.ac.uk/ about/intro/wip/rpg/of/ HEFCE (2013) “Operating framework for higher education in england.” HEFCE. July 2013. Accessed at www.hefce.ac.uk/ about/intro/wip/rpg/of/
45
Access and equity
Alternative Providers and designated status A range of APs are explicitly defined and included within the system of regulation. This is a welcome development in so far as it goes, promoting inclusion by right rather than by exception as has previously been the case. APs cited in the regulations include: ::
APs with degree awarding powers (DAP) (which may have university or university college title), with courses designated for student support purposes. :: APs with DAP, with no courses designated for student support purposes. :: APs with no DAP, with courses designated for student support purposes. :: APs with no DAP with courses validated by a recognised awarding body. :: Other APs whose students on certain courses study for recognised degrees validated by HE providers with DAP and other qualifications (including HNCs and HNDs) but are not designated for student support purposes.61 To achieve designation under the provisions contained within the framework, APs will need to demonstrate course validation through appropriate HEI partners; satisfy QAA regarding quality assurance requirements and HEFCE regarding financial sustainability, management and governance, and course eligibility. HEFCE will assess the application and make a recommendation to BIS. Potential sanctions associated with non-compliance include the issue of an improvement notice, a freeze or cut in student numbers, or, exceptionally, the withdrawal of designation by BIS. Where applicable, a Tier 4 sponsor licence from the Home Office (via QAA) will be required to cover international students recruited from non EU countries. A summary of the architecture associated with the proposed new operating framework is provided overleaf.
Limitations APs seeking DAPs or University title will still need to comply with existing requirements that remain unchanged, those seeking and achieving DAPs will therefore continue to be subject to specific review by the QAA every six years, a measure not imposed on the established university sector. Additionally, and specific to APs, student number controls will continue to operate across courses designated based on 2012/13 recruitment figures for the 2014/15 recruitment year. APs with more than 50 students will be required to subscribe 61
HEFCE (2013) “Operating framework for higher education in england. HEFCE. July 2013. Page 26. Accessed at www.hefce. ac.uk/about/intro/wip/rpg/of/
46
Access and equity
Oversight role
Granting of degree awarding powers
Granting of university title/university college title Designation for student support purposes
Designation for receipt of HEFCE grant
Validated by recognised awarking body
Single regulatory framework Agreement with all designated providers
Gateway
Regulatory building blocks
Academic standards and quality
Access and participation
Provision of information
Student experience: NSS, dispute resolution
Risk assessment and response
Financial sustainability and good governance
HEFCE register of HE provision (to include all designated providers) Source: Operating Framework For Higher Education in England. HEFCE. July 2013
to HESA to enable the operation of the student number control policy. Most significantly, these controls have now been relaxed for the established university sector in the 2014/15 academic year and it is currently planned that they will be removed from 2015/16.62 Effectively prescribing a temporary, two tier playing field within a unitary system of regulation. HEFCE contend it is their intention that “all designated HE providers are subject to the same essential requirements,”63 yet the attitude of the Home Office toward Alternative Provider highly trusted status and working rights for international 62 63
HMSO (2013) “Autumn statement 2013.” HMSO CM847. ID 2605954 35063 12/13. HEFCE (2013) “Operating framework for higher education in england.” HEFCE. July 2013. Accessed at www.hefce.ac.uk/ about/intro/wip/rpg/of/
47
Access and equity
students negates this aspiration. Whilst the provisions maintained for the award of DAPs and university title to APs and the imposition of student number controls continue to impair the achievement of a level playing field.
HEFCE register of Higher Education provision Through reform the government has attempted to place the student (and student choice) at the heart of a more open, diverse, market oriented and affordable HE system. If a market based approach is to be effective and equitable, consumers and regulators alike need knowledge and clarity regarding the institutional bone fides and provenance of claims of quality assurance made by all providers in the market place. The development by HEFCE of a register of higher education provision, made publicly available from the summer 2014, responds to this challenge. The register will: ::
provide a publicly available list of all designated HE providers operating in the sector :: record each organisation’s corporate and legal status :: document the higher education status of the organisation (designated for student support, HEFCE funding, DAP, university title) :: set out the accountability responsibilities of each organisation :: provide links to information showing how those requirements are monitored including any critical risk factors that need to be made public. This data will provide a permanent and updated source of information on all those HE institutions registered with HEFCE, including APs achieving designated provider status. The information will be widely available to students and others and will, by exception, identify those institutions not complying with the accountability requirements.
Limitations The scope of the proposed register will not achieve the comprehensive inclusion of all APs within its remit. Further, APs included within the scope of provision are only afforded ‘voluntary’ access to important elements of the proposed regulatory structure. This denies inclusion by right to potentially important reputational benefits associated with the regulatory system (i.e. inclusion within key information sets via the UNISTATS website, the National Students Survey and HESA data returns and membership of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator). Mandatory inclusion within the remit of the Office For Fair Access (OFFA) is not achieved despite the fact that many APs have an excellent track record in this 48
Access and equity
regard. They will continue to be effectively precluded from promoting this fact in the most advantageous manner. Together, these factors entrench existing problems with the equitable delivery of consistent information to the student marketplace and hinders the ability of prospective students (and others) to make informed judgements about APs in an open and fair manner. As the authors themselves note, “As far as possible we would like to move to a position where HEIs, FECs and alternative providers would be subject to a standard set of accountability requirements but we are constrained by the existing legislation at the present time.”64
Brown and Bekhradnia (2013) provide a wide ranging critique of the new operating framework contending that “so far from enhancing the public and private investment in higher education, the new framework could seriously detract from it.”65 They recognise that the system proposed is predicated on the promotion of greater competition between APs and the established HE sector - grounded in the informed choices made open to students in the selection of course and institution, supported by greater knowledge and redress. Whilst accepting that the new framework does indeed broaden the regulatory reach to new ‘designated providers’, they contend that the revised system lacks the coherence and consistency necessary to deliver the desired policy outcomes. Brown and Bekhradnia point to the lack of comprehensive coverage afforded by the new regulatory system – the framework does not cover the full range of education providers or students. The system remains overly complex requiring multiple connections between disparate organisations. With the absence of primary legislation, the new operating framework must rely upon existing powers that have been shoehorned to the service of policy aspirations for which they were never designed and for which their legality is contested.66 The introduction of a ‘light touch’, risk based approach to regulatory oversight sits uneasily with the concomitant development of a market led approach, itself designed to engender a greater propensity for risk and uncertainty in performance and in the assurance of effective governance and institutional sustainability. More generally, the authors point to a lack of detailed explanation as to how the proposed system will actually deliver the accountability of organisations in the requisite manner. 64 65 66
HEFCE (2013) “Operating framework for higher education in england.” HEFCE. July 2013. Page 20. Brown R. & Bekhradnia B. (2013) “The future regulation of higher education in england. HEPI. Accessed at www.hepi.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HEPI-Report-63-The-Future-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-in-England.pdf Brown R. & Bekhradnia B. (2013) “The future regulation of higher education in england. HEPI. Accessed at www.hepi.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HEPI-Report-63-The-Future-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-in-England.pdf Page 7.
49
Access and equity
Crucially, they provide a strong rebuttal for the lack of independence from government of the two principle regulators (HEFCE and the QAA). They point out that elsewhere in public life, the coexistence and interplay between regulatory functions and funding responsibilities are diminishing. In the regulation of HE, they are not. “This is on the basis that judgements about quality, performance and the use of resources should not be influenced by views about the level and adequacy of resources (it is difficult for the allocators of resources to come to the position that the level of resourcing may be sub-optimal).”67
Brown and Bekhradnia conclude that structural changes already introduced into the system with respect to funding (the promotion of a market- based approach revolving around student choice, supported by student loan funding) necessarily requires concomitant change at a structural level with regard to regulation, if a balanced and effective framework is to be achieved. “As the government recognised when it proposed a new higher education act, a statutory framework is required. Without it, it has created a new environment fraught with risks and one that urgently needs regulation, but one that is in danger of being unregulated or at best badly regulated.”68
A revised framework is proposed based upon the following principles: ::
::
::
::
67 68
The separation of responsibility for funding and regulatory oversight to different agencies. The two agencies being required to cooperate with each other in the discharge of their distinctive responsibilities and being subject to ‘meta-review’ by Parliament on a ten year cycle. Creation of a new independent regulatory body responsible to Parliament for administration of the regulatory framework – The Office for Higher Education (OFHE) – with a clear focus on the identification and protection of stakeholder interests, principally the interests of students and the taxpayer. Funded by a levy, proportionate to turnover, on all providers. Application of a single system of accreditation applying similarly to all potential providers – promoting equity in the treatment for new entrants alongside established players. Provision for a process for review (7-10 years), investigation and suspension of accreditation together with specific responsibility to ensure that the interests of continuing students are met in circumstances of institutional failure.
Brown R. & Bekhradnia B. (2013) “The future regulation of higher education in england. HEPI. Accessed at www.hepi.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HEPI-Report-63-The-Future-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-in-England.pdf Page 9. Brown R. & Bekhradnia B. (2013) “The future regulation of higher education in england. HEPI. Accessed at www.hepi.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HEPI-Report-63-The-Future-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-in-England.pdf Page 10.
50
Access and equity
::
Establishment of ‘common minimum standards of quality, viability and good governance’ applicable to all accredited bodies. They contend that the alternative system of regulation that they propose is capable of delivering a simplified, more consistent, comprehensive and effective mechanism of control of the entire HE sector, balancing the requirements of institutional autonomy with equitable treatment for all. They conclude: “The critical thing though will be to put in place a mechanism to ensure the adequate regulation of the whole new and expanding sector, and to ensure separation of the duty to regulate and the duty to fund.”69
Conclusion ::
::
:: ::
::
69
The government, through the Regulatory Partnership Group, have sought to streamline existing regulation and broaden its scope to include some Alternative Provider activity through the implementation of a revised Operating Framework. Whilst this delivers rhetorical benefit to APs it does not materially change their discriminatory treatment under the proposed new system of regulation. The system proposed is not comprehensive in scope or design. Significant APs will remain undefined and unregulated. Without primary legislation, responsibility for regulation of the system and the allocation of funding within that system are intertwined. This promotes complexity and a lack of clarity in the operation of both systems and promotes disproportionate burdens of compliance upon APs. Current initiatives by the government and by the Regulatory Partnership Group to adapt the existing regulatory system in order to accommodate new operating practices promoted in the government white paper have been widely criticised. They are noted as being piecemeal in nature, of dubious legal standing and not capable of addressing the inequities that APs currently face in HE market place.
Brown R. & Bekhradnia B. (2013) “The future regulation of higher education in england. HEPI. Accessed at www.hepi.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HEPI-Report-63-The-Future-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-in-England.pdf
51
Access and equity
Case Study GSM London: Promoting wider access through the student experience Promoting More Effective Student Choice & Support
GSM London is a higher education institution dedicated to promoting access to a wider range of potential learners. The delivery model is one of lower fees, smaller classes and greater choice.To achieve this GSM places the student at the heart of all of its activities - promoting student choice through a rich diversity of programme design and delivery and providing innovative student support to enhance student retention, progression and employability.
How does GSM London deliver this: Teaching & learning grounded in the needs of the community
GSM London works hard to maintain close links with its local community, developing an intimate and friendly atmosphere which pervades the organisational culture and provides teaching staff with the opportunity to know all of their students personally. Keeping close to local and national business needs
The smaller portfolio of courses provides students with a degree qualification that offers the skills that employers in the local and national competitive business world are looking for. Innovative programme design to meet student needs
Degrees can be completed in two years rather than the conventional three offered by most HE providers, enabling students to get into the workplace sooner. Access to foundation years, accelerated degrees and three entry points (October, February, June) a year, promotes access and delivers greater choice to students from a wider demographic background than that traditionally associated with university learning Flexible learning structures and programme delivery
Courses are specifically designed to offer flexible attendance and learning alternatives. This promotes wider opportunities for student choice, which in turn enables learners to join GSM London at a stage in their careers which suits them; enabling participants to enhance their career whilst still working or caring for their families. “The personal attention I have received during lectures at GSM London has had a major impact on my success in higher education. There are no huge stuffy lecture theatres with hundreds of students – you get one-to-one attention in every single class.” Emma Kaur BSc Business and Management (Travel and Tourism)
52
Access and equity
:: Prompts for further reform Whilst substantive debate continues to surround alternate public funding mechanisms for higher education teaching and learning, there appears greater cross party consensus on the urgent need for systematic regulatory reform of HE.70 71 72 Middlehurst & Fielden assert that “the scope and design of the regulatory framework will be crucial. It must not provide any perverse incentives and it should seek to endorse national objectives for higher education”.73 In pursuit of these objectives, different political parties have adopted distinctive policy positions, but whichever policy direction is adopted, major reform of the current system of higher education will require attendant primary legislation to support its effective implementation.74 Brown and Bekhrandnia (2013) provide a compelling case for the early introduction of primary legislation designed explicitly to identify and prescribe responsibilities for all the providers operating within the HE sector. Focusing upon taught provision, they contend that legislation should be inclusive and comprehensive in nature. It should provide for independent regulation (and a regulator) that is removed and separate from considerations concerning funding. Funding should be determined by government and should build upon existing reforms - progressively adopting a more liberal and pluralistic market approach to HE teaching and learning provision. Attainment of a student centric market approach to the public funding of HE promotes free and fair competition across all providers and is neither regressive nor distorts the market artificially to the preference of particular types of provider. 70 71 72 73 74
Massey A & Munro G (2010) “Higher education in the age of austerity. The role of private providers. Policy Exchange. 2010. Liberal Democrats (2013) “Learning for life: education and skills from upper secondary to lifelong learning.” Policy Paper. Autumn Party Conference. 15.09.2013. Accessed at www.libdems.org.uk/ Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI. Page 34. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html See for example the recommendations of the Brown Review - Lord Browne. (2010) “Securing a sustainable future for higher education.” October 2010 Page 46. IPPR Commission on the future of higher education. (2013) “A critical path securing the future of higher education in England.” June 2013. Bryne L. (2014) “Robbins Rebooted. How We Earn Our Way in the Second Machine Age.” Social Market Foundation, August 2014, Page 25 & Page 46.
53
Access and equity
But without the implementation of an attendant common regulatory framework that is independent of the system of finance, APs will continue to operate at a significant disadvantage by comparison with the established universities. Three recent contributions to the contemporary debate are particularly persuasive in this respect. Each has the capacity to support the future growth and development of APs, whilst benefiting students and the sector as a whole.
The absence of the level playing field Hillman (2014) laments the absence of primary legislation in the current Parliament noting that, “the third element of the white paper – a more diverse higher education system – was rooted in the assumption of a new legal framework.”75 He points to the continued existence of different regulatory requirements for different types of providers and intimates that this continues to prejudice the position of APs in the emerging HE market place. “The rules for many critical features of English higher education are different depending on the type of provider, including: fees and loans; the treatment of international students, and complaints procedures. In place of a level playing field, there is an unkempt meadow.”76
Hillman usefully clarifies the disparities that currently exist between the regulation of established universities and those endured by APs. Eight issues or ‘pinch points’ are identified: Renewal of Degree Awarding Powers: Whilst provision to award DAPs has seen some liberalisation since 2004, DAPs acquired by APs are still subject to renewal whilst those granted to established universities are not. Hillman makes the cogent point that as the differentiation between publicly funded and non-publicly funded institutions is now ‘largely irrelevant’, regulation should be amended to provide a standard requirement across all providers. Further, the enhanced regulatory oversight associated with quality assurance and organisational sustainability set out in the RPG New Operating Framework points the way forward in implementing new powers to suspend or remove DAPs that should apply equally to all providers. In addition, a change in ownership should initiate a ‘substantive change’ review. External validation of degrees: Hillman identifies an anomaly in current provision and calls for its removal.77 We would go further. The BIS research (2013) identified significant engagement between APs and validating universities – relationships that were seen as entirely productive and beneficial to all parties. Respondents 75 76 77
Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI. 2014. Page 2. Hillman N. (2014) “Unfinished business?: higher education legislation.” HEPI Report 65. HEPI. Page 7. Hillman N. (2014) “Unfinished business?: higher education legislation.” HEPI Report 65. HEPI Page 19.
54
Access and equity
contributing to the primary research findings associated with this paper further confirmed this point. We recommend that future legislation should provide a power to the independent regulator to develop and oversee a single framework for the operation of validation relationships. Its principles should apply in all cases and be clear and transparent. Practice in accord with this framework should be included in regulatory oversight (for all parties) where it applies. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA): Currently APs can only access the independent complaints service operated by the OIA on a voluntary basis. This precludes access to this service for domestic and international students studying with APs unless the latter submit to a due diligence process and pay the requisite fee. As Hillman notes, this disparity potentially disenfranchises those students choosing to attend courses offered by APs. Equal and open access to an independent complaints service is an important component of a free and fair market place – not least for students, regardless of their choice of provider. We agree with Hillman that failure to require the inclusion of such a service for students of APs represents a reputational threat to them, and to the sector as a whole. Hillman advocates for self-regulation as pragmatic, stop gap solution until primary legislation can be implemented. The danger remains that within a system of selfregulation the most poorly performing institutions would be the most likely to simply ignore voluntary registration and the costs that this would bring to them. The office of the OIA agree with us: “The notion of a “level playing field” is more than just a phrase. When it comes to student disputes all students should have access to a specialist, independent, experienced ombudsman service.”78
The removal of public funding criteria from any future system of regulation for all HE providers recommended in this paper, also offers the opportunity to address current disparities in fees paid for the service provided by the OIA. We therefore recommend that future legislation should compel all registered providers of HE to operate under the auspice of the OIA on an equal footing. Regularising VAT exemptions: Hillman points to the disparity in treatment between for-profit APs and publicly funded HE/FE providers. The former, unlike the latter are not generally exempt from payment of VAT on provision of education or training for which a fee is levied. This in turn prompts further inequalities in the operation of the HE market. Despite recent attempts by HM Revenue and Customs to regularise 78
OIA, Annual Report 2012, June 2013, Page 12. Cited in Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI Page 20.
55
Access and equity
matters the situation remains unresolved.79 Given that we recommend that future legislation provides comprehensive registration of all HE providers on an equitable basis, HM Revenue and Customs should commit publicly to the consistent application of VAT regulation across all HE providers operating under that registration system and work collaboratively with them toward that end. International students: The management of the Tier 4 migration rules, and the process by which APs acquire and retain Highly Trusted Status, differs materially in favour of the established university sector. Our research indicates that even the more established and secure APs encounter significant obstacles in achieving and maintaining Highly Trusted Status not encountered by their established university counterparts. This includes: ::
International students studying with APs without DAPs remaining ineligible to obtain part-time employment. :: APs face additional educational oversight measures with which they must comply in full if they are to retain Highly Trusted Status :: Prospective students at Alternative Provider Institutions must overcome the imposition of additional English language requirements. All of this adds significant time, cost and bureaucracy for APs. Given that the Home Office have significantly tightened the broader regulatory system governing international students in 2008/9 it is hard to see the continued justification for these disparities. As Hillman notes, “once two institutions have secured highly trusted status, there is arguably no logic in applying a different level of trust. Yet universities, publicly-funded further education colleges and alternative providers with their own degree awarding powers are treated differently to other alternative providers even after securing highly-trusted status.”80
The continuation of these inequities has undoubtedly skewed the market in favour of the established universities. At the same time, it has led to a collapse in provision by some APs.81 We recommend that BIS, the RPG and the Home Office conduct an urgent joint review of the current practical and procedural inequities impacting negatively on APs in the operation of the Tier 4 migration rules. More widely, there are compelling arguments for the removal of international 79 80 81
See Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI Page 17 for a more detailed analysis. Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI. Page 15. Centreforum, (2012) ”Tier 4 tears: how government student visa controls are destroying the private HE sector.” CentreForum. January 2012.
56
Access and equity
students studying on recognised educational programmes with registered HE providers from consideration within government migration targets, irrespective of whether they study with APs or otherwise. “British universities are now our seventh greatest export industry and that is in no small part down to their success in attracting foreign students. Foreign students have not only been good for universities, they have been good for Britain. As a minister travelling abroad, I was always struck at how our ambassadors used to tell me that the single most important thing we could do, long term, to grow our influence, was to expand the number of foreign students we taught at university.”82
Further, and as we have reported in complimentary studies,83 the government has begun to undo some of the negative impact and reputational damage done to international student recruitment to Alternative and other HE providers caused by the closure of the post study work route in 2012. The government should implement the full restoration of the post-study work route for all international students as early as is practical. Caps on tuition fees and student number controls: Hillman alludes to the £6,000K cap currently imposed on student loans applicable to designated courses delivered by APs. He notes the rapid expansion in domestic student recruitment achieved by some APs in the light of this and states, “a key question for policymakers is whether to continue maintaining the differential in tuition fee loans […] according to whether the institution is funded by HEFCE or not.”84 We contend that the answer is captured within the content of the question. As the market in HE provision develops further, the logic behind any form of imposed, dual tiered funding system dies with it. We therefore recommend that tuition fee and loan caps be removed - they distort the market and are prejudicial to the principles and practice of fair competition. Similarly, the retention of student number controls on APs to 2015/16 places before them a market loaded with an arbitrary and prejudicial barrier to their growth; a barrier the established universities no longer face.85 If a level playing field is to be achieved in the market in terms of fair competition, such inducements or controls should apply evenly to all potential providers. We see no justification for continuing to control student numbers by placing arbitrary restrictions on particular providers, based solely on the nature of their institutional title or general mode of operation. 82 83 84 85
Byrne L (2014) “Robins rebooted. how we earn our way in the second machine age.” Social Market Foundation, August 2014, Page 62. See, Frostic T. & Gault T. (2013) “Postgraduate education: better funding and better access.” CentreForum. Page 54. And Papworth T. (2013) “The business case for immigration reform.” CentreForum. Page 57. Hillman N. (2014) Unfinished Business?: higher education legislation. HEPI Report 65. HEPI. Page 10. HMSO (2013) “Autumn statement 2013.” HMSO CM847. ID 2605954 35063 12/13.
57
Access and equity
Research funding: Hillman points to current iniquities in the ability of APs to gain access to quality related research income. We conclude that future legislation governing decisions relating to the public funding of quality research should be divorced from regulation developed for HE teaching provision. Regulation addressing the allocation of quality-related research funding should rest simply upon a determination of the relative research capacity, expertise and experience demonstrated by any HE institution in each case. Should value be associated with the assimilation of research into teaching provision, this might be properly considered as part of this process.
The adoption of a common regulatory framework for English HE provision The 2nd report of the Higher Education Commission, ‘Regulating Higher Education: Protecting Students, Encouraging Innovation, Enhancing Excellence’, was published in November 2013. Its analysis provides a compelling case for the introduction of comprehensive regulation reform across the HE sector. “[It] is essential that the higher education sector be properly regulated. It is a valuable part of our national infrastructure and we must therefore ensure that students investing thousands of pounds in their futures are receiving top quality provision, and that the institutions they are attending are financially viable. This assurance also protects the brand of UK higher education as a whole: the excellence of higher education provision in England attracts students from around the world.”86
In response, a strong business case is promoted for reform of the current regulatory environment, supported by the adoption of new primary legislation at the earliest opportunity. A new, common regulatory framework is presented, operating under a revised regulatory architecture overseen by a new independent regulator reporting direct to Parliament.87 Crucially for APs, the proposed new regulatory architecture establishes a new body – the Office for Competition and Institutional Diversity (OCID) bringing APs within a single regulatory system for HE. “The new Office for Competition and Institutional Diversity (OCID) would be a lightly – staffed body focussing on alternative providers. This would include private institutions. New entrants from outside the UK, and new corporate structures that traditional universities are producing (such as Coventry). The main purpose of OCID would be to encourage innovation and institutional diversity by providing broader 86 87
Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 17. Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 37.
58
Access and equity
network and policy links for alternative providers (including encouraging a trade body for alternative providers). This would give the providers more legitimacy and a voice, and help the regulator to monitor developments and new structures – including on line provision and MOOCs. It is hoped that this function will help HESA collect data on what has previously been an undocumented part of the sector.”88
Mandatory registration of all HE providers across the English HE market is effectively assured through the powers granted to the Council for Higher Education (CHE) or the Office for Competition and Institutional Diversity (OCID). In turn, this affords the establishment of a common regulatory framework operating under a single, overarching regulator. A two stage registration process covering all HE providers is proposed: ::
All higher education institutions in England (public, private, international or online with an address in England) would be required to register under the CHE’s Common Regulatory Framework. :: Once registered, if institutions wanted to recruit UK/EU students and/ or wanted to teach recognised degrees they would have to comply with further quality assurances and data submissions.89 Within this new comprehensive registration system APs become self-defined by application and acceptance within the new regulatory architecture and registration process. Registration is not a mark of quality assurance – its purpose is definitional and determines legitimacy to operate. Quality is determined through the role of the QAA, operating both as an impartial guarantor of institutional bone fides and as a reviewer of quality of provision operating across the full range of HE institutions. Crucially, these proposed arrangements guarantee that the independence of quality assurance is divorced from funding considerations. “The QAA, with its responsibilities for quality assurance and enhancement, needs independence (not least from funding allocations) for its legitimacy, which would be compromised if it was absorbed into the CHE.”90
The QAA will be free to act impartially as an independent quality control gateway to the market itself, and whilst QAA review might form part of the access criteria for student loan finance, it will be the regulator (the CHE) not the reviewer that has responsibility for such judgments. 88 89 90
Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 43. Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 56 Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 43.
59
Access and equity
“A certificate of quality would come after an institution has registered under the Common Regulatory Framework, had a successful QAA review, and subscribed to the OIA. After this, the institution will receive a seal of approval from the CHE, indicating that it has been scrutinised by the regulator and is compliant with the regulatory regime. This kite mark should be displayed by institutions on their literature and used as a demonstration of their quality assurance.”91
The intent is to promote ‘incentivised collaboration’ between the regulator, an independent process of quality control and the regulated. To be effective, this collaboration must reflect the diversity of needs and activities exhibited by the growing range of providers captured within the registration process. Critically, it will need to be designed in such a manner as to ensure parity of treatment in the application of quality control procedures across all providers. Clear concerns currently exist regarding disparity of treatment between established universities and APs regarding the current processes associated with institutional review. Existing procedures and requirements, designed to meet the needs of established universities, can prove inadequate or excessively burdensome when applied to APs and to different modes of HE provision.92 We recommend therefore that the design of primary legislation and the revised regulatory system attendant to it should be supplemented by a systematic reappraisal of the content and procedures associated with institutional review (conducted by the new regulatory body and by QAA with regard to quality assurance). The purpose of this re-appraisal will be to create a process of review going forward that is consistent in definition and in its application across all HE providers.
Fair competition Reporting in March 2014 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) explore the concerns raised by APs and others into the uncompetitive nature of the current UK HE marketplace, presaged in part, by the inadequacies and inequities contained within the existing regulatory system attendant to it. 93 Whilst on balance they find no empirical substantiation for significant anticompetitive behaviour across the market, they join with others in concluding that the current system of regulation of HE “is complex and increasingly at odds with a system based on student choice. “94 91 92 93 94
Higher Education Commission. (2013) “Regulating higher education: protecting students, encouraging innovation, enhancing excellence. November 2013. Accessed at www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/sites/site_hec/files/report/333/ fieldreportdownload/hecommission-regulatinghighereducation.pdf Page 56. See Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. (2011) “Private providers in UK higher education: some policy options.” HEPI Page 34. Accessible at: www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1969/Private-Providers-in-UK-Higher-Education--Some-Policy- Options.html Page 33. Office of Fair Trading, (2014) “Higher education in england. A call for information.” March 2014. Accessed at assets.digital. cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/53355970ed915d630e000017/OFT1529s.pdf Office of Fair Trading, (2014) “Higher education in england. A call for information.” March 2014. Accessed at assets.digital. cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/53355970ed915d630e000017/OFT1529s.pdf Page 8.
60
Access and equity
Following research undertaken by Gibbs (2010)95 they point to the need for further improvements in the information made available to prospective students. They support the establishment of a single register of HE providers (though limited in scope by the boundaries delineated within the RPG Operating Framework) and they “encourage HEFCE to consider how the information and risks identified in the register can best feed into choice tools and student decision-making, such as linking the register with the UCAS portal.”96 We agree with their latter intention and further recommend that it be expanded and adopted within the establishment the comprehensive register of all HE providers called for in this report. We recommend that a revised system of regulation should be supported by publicly available information that is coherent and accessible to all potential users. The regulator, working with specific bodies responsible for relevant information provision, should be required to establish a single coherent framework for public information exchange and dissemination to support effective student choice and the accountability of institutions within the system of regulation implemented. Analysing the current regulatory environment the OFT note “ there are considerable challenges in relation to the lack of a level playing field, the role of self-regulation and whether it establishes a proper accountability system that reflects the interests of the wide range of stakeholders, and the lack of exit regimes for situations in which courses close or an institution fails.”97
They point to the negative impact that the lack of regulatory certainty promotes across the sector, recognising the particular constraints that this places on APs, hindering their ability to attract investors, plan effectively over the medium and longer term and achieve market entry and growth aspirations in an equitable manner. The report reinforces the maintenance of “competitive neutrality” in the regulatory system if particular providers are not to be materially disadvantaged. Rehearsing many of the concerns of APs identified in our research, the OFT raise specific concerns regarding the current standing and role of UCAS and the quality assurance procedures adopted by the QAA in delivering a fair and equitable playing field for all providers. From the evidence available to them the OFT conclude that their successor body, 95 96 97
Gibbs G. Dimensions of quality. Accessed at: www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/policy/ltmmu/docs/Dimensionsof Quality%20%20 Graham%20Gibbs.pdf Office of Fair Trading, (2014) “Higher education in england. A call for information.” March 2014. Accessed at assets.digital. cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/53355970ed915d630e000017/OFT1529s.pdf Page 30. Office of Fair Trading, (2014) “Higher education in england. A call for information.” March 2014. Accessed at assets.digital. cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/53355970ed915d630e000017/OFT1529s.pdf Page 8
61
Access and equity
the Competition and Markets Authority, should undertake further work “with and through” existing organisations to ensure the design and implementation of a revised regulatory regime that supports open and fair access and treatment to all providers. Crucial to the maintenance of student choice at the heart of continuing market reforms in HE is the knowledge by the student that their choice is adequately safeguarded throughout the determination of their chosen programme of study. The incidence of institutional failure and protection for students where this occurs are important considerations for students, for regulators and particularly for APs for whom there is no established funder of last resort. A more structured and transparent approach to the accreditation and validation procedures currently applied to APs by the established university sector might serve to mitigate this issue where these arrangements apply. The establishment of a standardised framework including a requirement for the accrediting university to provide support to students accredited to them in the light of market exit of a third party provider should be developed alongside broader regulatory reform. Beyond accredication/validation of APs by established universities, the broader issue of institutional failure and market exit remains across the entire HE sector, not least if market forces are to reward institutional innovation and endeavour and protect against poor performance and institutional ineffectiveness. Government, the National Union of Students and HE regulators should explore the potential for the development of an insurance scheme, similar to that which is now well established in the travel industry (ATOL) to protect the interests of students in the light of institutional failure whilst preserving the opportunity for market exit.
62
Access and equity
:: Conclusion and recommendations APs bring diversity and innovation to the higher education sector. They actively promote student choice and seek out new opportunities to promote wider access to education and to employment. Embracing market disciplines they combine a central focus on excellence in teaching and learning with efficient service deliver and student support. Whilst government policy supports these ends, the current system of regulation and administration of higher education in England mitigates against the equitable treatment of APs alongside those operating within the established university sector. The overarching recommendation from this report is therefore: The establishment by government of an ‘equitable playing field’ for all providers of higher education, delivered through a revised and single comprehensive system of regulation and administration that embraces all HE providers. To achieve this government should:
Review and revise the existing regulatory framework Establish, through primary legislation, a single common regulatory framework applicable to all registered HE providers. Support this framework by developing a comprehensive registration system applicable equally to all HE providers (including APs) operating in England. A new, simplified, regulatory architecture should be established to manage the common regulatory framework and the system of registration. Within this regulatory architecture we support the establishment of a body focused upon the particular needs of APs, balancing their specific needs and diversity of provision with a commitment to parity of treatment in regulation and institutional review.
Establish clear, equitable and transparent principles under which the regulatory framework will operate The regulatory framework and the registration system supporting it should be open, accessible and transparent in design and in operation. 63
Access and equity
Responsibility for funding the higher education market should be divorced from the responsibility of regulating the higher education system. Both systems (funding and regulation) should encompass all registered HE providers Under the new regulatory framework powers to approve, review, suspend and remove DAPs should be established that are binding equally on all registered HE providers operating in England. All registered HE providers operating under the framework should provide, by means of an annual return, prescribed information. Failure to comply may promote investigation, sanction and possible removal from the register All registered HE providers should be required to register with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Focus on Quality Assurance and surety of provision Under the revised regulatory framework there should be a systematic reappraisal of the content and procedures associated with registered HE provider institutional review. The process of institutional review adopted should, in each case, be consistent in definition and in its application across all registered HE providers. A single framework providing guidance and practical oversight of the external accreditation/validation arrangements that might exist between universities, professional institutions and APs should be established. This framework must be designed and implemented in a manner that takes due accord of the different needs and responsibilities of all parties operating within its scope, including arrangements to protect students where institution or programme failure might occur.
Introduce specific measures to promote a single equitable playing field in Higher Education Current disparities in tuition fees and loan caps between the established universities and APs should be removed. Their imposition distorts the market and is prejudicial to the principles and practice of fair competition. Having assured consistency and quality of service delivery through comprehensive registration and institutional review, any system of student number controls should be applied equitably across all registered HE providers. International students studying on recognised educational programmes with registered HE providers should not be regarded as migrants, irrespective of whether they study with APs or otherwise. To this end there should be an urgent review of the current practical and procedural inequities in the operation of the Tier 4 migration rules as they apply to international students.
64
Access and equity
:: Appendix 1 Participants in the primary research To explore more fully the challenges and opportunities facing APs and the barriers that must be overcome if they are to achieve parity of esteem through the regulatory system and in market operation, we undertook a series of detailed semi-structured interviews with key HE stakeholder groups. Interview questions were developed from the analysis and conclusions drawn from the literature review findings reported in the previous sections of this report. Interviews were conducted under the Chatham House rule in order to support the fullest possible participation. All cited quotations are consequently indicative of the findings achieved. We are grateful to the following individuals who contributed to this research.
Higher Education institutions Brighton Institute of Modern Music Adam Carswell, Managing Director GSM London Alison Wheaton, Chief Executive Officer ifs University College Gavin Shreeve, Principal, Institute of Contemporary Music Performance Paul Kirkham, Managing Director Kaplan (Kaplan Holborn College) Tim Burrows Elizabeth Hess, Director of Communications New College of the Humanities Mathew Batstone, Director Pearson College Roxanne Stockwell, Director and Principal
65
Access and equity
Regents University London Professor Aldwyn Cooper, Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Sam Cannicott, Policy and StrategyAdvisor University of Buckingham Professor Geoffrey Alderman University of Laws Nigel Savage, President University of Sussex Professor Clare Mackie, Pro Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning
Higher Education regulatory bodies Higher Education Funding Council England Yvonne Hawkins, Associate Director, Midlands and South Higher Education Statistics Agency Alison Allden, Chief Executive Office of the Independent Administrator For Higher Education Ben Elger, Chief Operating Officer Jane Clarkson, Policy and Communications Officer The Quality Assurance Agency Irene Ainsworth, Head of Degree Awarding Powers and University Title
Higher Education representative bodies Guild HE Andy Westwood, Chief Executive Officer National Union of Students Rachel Wenstone, Vice President of Higher Education Study UK Sue Hindley, Chair Alex Proudfoot, Association Manager University and College Union Michael MacNeil, National Head of Higher Education Universities UK Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive
66
