Transcript Document

Politicians, civil servants, vice-chancellors, lecturers
and students: Implications of “boundary encounters” for
educational developers
James Wisdom
[email protected]
Does it advance our understanding to consider
the politicians, the civil servants and the vicechancellors as communities of practice?
Might they have common goals, are they developing
their learning through participation, are they working
in recognisable and distinctive ways, are they making
meaning?
And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and
the educational developers interact with them?
Politicians:
John Denham, Peter Mandelson, David Lammy,
David Willetts, Phil Willis, Stephen Williams
What are the shared assumptions?
Where might they disagree?
Shared assumptions:
That investment in HE is an essential investment in
the economy of the country
Future is knowledge-based, high skills, high value
products and services
All three parties are committed to expansion of
vocational education, training, apprenticeships,
Foundation Degrees (perhaps in FE colleges).
Possibly a single funding body across F&HE – will
this strengthen vocational education?
Where might they agree or disagree?
Further expansion? Both Lab and Tory promising
more new places this year
Labour manifesto is fullest – support for part time
study, STEM subjects and investment in subjects
to support economic growth.
Tories – Community Learning Fund for adults.
LibDems reported to be against further expansion
(not in manifesto)
Where might they disagree?
Widening participation?
Yes from Labour – emphasis on social mobility
From Tories – “Work to improve the way that
universities are funded so that students get a fair deal,
disadvantaged young people don’t miss out”
Assumption that free tuition widens participation
(LibDem)
Where might they disagree?
Fees?
Labour and Tories accept fees – issue is in the mix of
grants and loans in the support package
LibDems pledge to scrap fees over six years.
SNP – “More Nats – Less Cuts” – more training places
and financial support for students. Oppose fees
Plaid Cymru - Against tuition fees, would phase out.
Conclusions:
•No pledges to ring-fence HE – cuts inevitable
•Labour – experience of government shows – prepared
to direct change
•Willetts – in step with Mandelson over economic role of
HE; (but may be out if Ministry is reformed)
•Both handling complexity
•Lib Dems – looking for difference?
•Nats – looking to defend against London
Civil service and funding councils
Frequently re-positioned cadre of civil servants (at
present led by Stephen Marston) – FE often split
between Skills and Schools
80 seniors, total 910
Relatively stable quango of Hefce officers,
25 seniors, total 247
Taking advice from c100 standing committee
members
Might they have common goals, are they developing
their learning through participation, are they working in
recognisable and distinctive ways, are they making
meaning?
In what ways might we see Hefce as a community of
practice?
Model –
•Minister develops strategy,
•passes to Hefce through the funding letter,
•Hecfe converts it into policy,
•then issues it through the block grant calculation or
through project funding.
Hefce expertise –
•Giving good advice;
•Exemplifying options;
•Balancing autonomy against direction;
•Understanding the speed of change;
•Reducing unintended consequences.
Hefce:
Is the quality and experience of this “community”
visible through its handling of its main task:
Handling relationship between funding and student
numbers – reduction, steady state and increase.
Each of the six positions has its difficulties.
Where is the building of expertise?
Expansion while restraining investment (1990s)
Introduction of national quality assurance
Introduction of research selectivity exercise
Investing in science and research (post 2000)
Expansion while increasing investment (post 2000)
Problems:
Underestimating capacity of institutions to expand
rapidly with open-ended Treasury commitment
Use of projects and initiatives to drive change
Funding model leads to similarity – difference,
specialisation and diversity is weak (unready for
recession)
Considering the civil service:
Where are the drivers for strategy?
Other Ministries (skills shortages, sustainability,
leadership, regeneration)
Benchmarking against the 30 OECD nations
What is the OECD telling us?
That we are seeing massive expansion in HE
Number of graduates has grown by av 4.5% p.a. since 1997, stable
funding until 2000, then spending per student up by 11% until 2006. In
the UK spending per student has risen 39% between 2000 and 2006
Across OECD countries, 34% of young adults have
completed tertiary education(UK 37%, Canada c50%)
There has been an increase in proportion of funding
from students and their families
State provision for the poorer, private provision for
the richer
That we invest less of a proportion of our GDP
than the average OECD nation.
But the cost of tertiary education per head per
annum is £5,525, just above OECD average
That the personal premium across the OECD is
£122,812
That the net public return per student is
£34,334.
What might be the civil service analysis of UK HE?
What might be the civil service analysis of UK HE?
That we have done well to increase participation
rates of young people – they are 20% more likely to
enter HE now than in the 1990s
That fees + finance do not appear to have made an
impact, even on those living in the most deprived
areas.
That part time students are not well served by
current regime
That cuts will do damage in the short term, but may
lead to improvements in the shape of the sector –
question – how much should HMG direct and
intervene?
The importance of raising national level of skills = 12th
in OECD with 30% qualified to tertiary level
That the number of 18-21 will decline over the next
decade, but demand for HE will rise amongst the
young (so widening the class base) and the mature.
HE is still too socially regressive.
Mature: partly new entrants, partly because the higher
the level of education, the greater the propensity to
re-train (but how do we pay for it?)
The importance of progression opportunities for
vocational and apprenticeship qualifications
Apprenticeships – 5 good GCSEs
Advanced apprenticeships – 2 A levels
Higher Apprenticeships – NVQ4 or Foundation Degree
Development of new programmes and modes of
delivery is hampered by traditional systems and
inflexible quality assurance (e.g. the use of credit
is underdeveloped)
That the brand has been put at risk by the “defensive
complacency” about quality and standards, and use of
new fees money.
The UK’s position in the growing competition for
international students has been weakened by focusing
on institution budget deficits as the motive rather than
partnerships
That reliance on international student fees is insecure
(cheaper competition and home-grown provision)
£2.9bn is 13% of the sector’s total income
That the fees regime has not been new money from
students, but new money from the Treasury
In what ways might we think of the vice
chancellors as a community of practice?
UUK as a trade association, not a CoP
What about the various groups, clubs or gangs?
Million +
1994 Group
University Alliance
Russell Group
Theme – the search for difference
Russell Group – 20 universities – benchmarking
against world-class universities. Research-led
learning: the heart of a Russell Group university
experience
1994 Group – 19 smaller research intensive
universities defending themselves against the Russell
group - Each member undertakes diverse and highquality research, while ensuring excellent levels of
teaching and student experience.
Their Research Project report (2009) was about
employability outside the curriculum
Million + 28 institutions – was the Campaign for
Mainstream Universities. Mainly post-92. people from
every walk of life to benefit from access to – for
business, the NHS, the not-for-profit sectors and
government to benefit from the full potential of all
universities
University Alliance - 22 universities at the heart of the
sector that are research-engaged and businessfocussed. Majority post 1992. Was the Alliance of NonAligned Universities
The Leadership Foundation
The Top Management Programme is the Leadership
Foundation’s flagship programme and has an
established track record in developing strategic leaders
in the sector.
400 through since 1999
Over 40 of the current UK Vice-Chancellors/Principals
are TMP Alumni.
It has a VLE, and an alumni network with annual
meeting – basis of a community?
Sutton Trust – Educational backgrounds of Vice
Chancellors, 2008
Unlike the leaders of many other major professions,
66% of the VCs come from state schools,
overwhelmingly grammar schools.
Nine out of ten university heads were awarded their
first degrees in old universities, established before
1992.
And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and
the educational developers interact with them?
And if so, how might the lecturers, the students and
the educational developers interact with them?
Or
What predictions can we make for the future?
What predictions can we make for the future?
Funding
Employer engagement
Credit
Institutions and staff
Standards & Quality
Costs
Student engagement
Educational leadership
Funding
Increased pressure of demand - elsewhere this
creates private or profit-making opportunities
What will happen to the three-year, campusbased, straight after school, Honours degree?
Labour (and civil service?) would only protect
STEM and strategic subjects with public funds
So – higher fees, restricted support, loans at
higher rates of interest.
What will the middle class accept? Date of next
election?
Employer engagement
Not a good time.
Relying on employer initiative will not meet Leitch
targets
State direction likely?
Any expansion funding will be contested for
vocational and higher level skills, for the new class
of technician
Fees support packages likely to benefit poorer
students and vocational institutions (HE in FE?)
Credit
The “Plan B” of employer engagement and fairer
access
Repeated emphasis on credit and flexibility
Possibility of funding by credit not by programme
Access by mature and poorer student
Possibility of employer support
Will require new course designs and new
assessment regimes
Institutions and staff
70% of the £1.1bn net in fees money went into higher
salaries and new posts – reductions inevitable
Pre-92 pensions in deficit by £4.7bn over assets of
£28bn
Will institutions collaborate over
-administration and support services
-facilities and research (research concentration)
-teaching and courses
Great pressure to reverse the “all the same” to
differences of expertise – expect funding to drive this.
Standards and quality
Sector assumptions about standards and
quality are still based on the 3-Y C-B S-A-S
Honours degree
The pressure is on to reform assessment to
match different conditions
From assessing what you have been taught
to assessing what you have learnt
This will become part of the battleground of
reputation, boosted by the new information
regime
Costs
We have a funding model based on what we have
spent in teaching the 3-Y C-B S-A-S Honours
degree
What does it cost to be able to achieve the learning
outcomes of a programme?
Who is prepared to find out?
OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes
project to create measures
Student engagement
A re-shaped model of learning
A range of differently-designed courses
A more appropriate assessment regime
will all require a different (better?) relationship
with the student
Where might an educational developer start on student
engagement?
•An informed dialogue about learning outcomes
•Active engagement with assessment criteria
•Exercises to understand notions of standards
•The development in sophistication of students’
conceptions of learning
•Use of the Assist questionnaire to focus on levels of
learning
•Recognition of the significant characteristics of
module and programme design
Educational leadership
The central role of the programme director/leader
Earlier model – the educational developer advising
the programme team about innovative? better? more
efficient? models of delivery and engaging with
programme and module design
Future model – programme teams at professional
standard 2, leadership with pedagogic CPD
Conclusions for educational developers:
We need to get behind the employer engagement
and vocational skills movement
We need to protect our institutions by welcoming
credit reform and redesigning to meet the new needs
We need to help institutions develop their distinctive
strengths and strategic directions
We need to reform assessment to meet modern
pedagogy, and we need to broadcast that as
improvement, not substitute, for the gold standard
We need to engage with the costs of students learning,
not just staff teaching
We need to help staff to reshape their relationship with
students from being taught to engaging with their
learning
We need to grow as fast as possible the pedagogically
skilled programme leader, and ensure the frameworks
are there to support their work